Thursday, October 19, 2017


under construction. 



 "I do not need to have her for a wife or a slave."

" I can just let her go.  In certain respects, she is not my equal, just as I am not the equal of Judge Douglas in certain respects.   But in her natural right to eat the bread she makes with her own hands, she IS my equal and the equal of anyone" 

This you tube video, taken from a 1939 movie, used the very cleaned up version of what Douglas said and did -- they don't show Douglas running back and forth screaming that Lincoln wants your daughters to "sleep with Niggers". 

But if you watch it all - or much better, read all of Lincoln's speeches, and all of Douglas speeches closely, you will find Lincoln better speak wisely -- or he not only doesn't have a chance to win the election, he could be in danger.  

Danger?  Yes, as you will see others were attacked, even killed, in Illinois, for speaking too candidly for equality.

Yet Lincoln -- even when parsing words-- made this points,  and even said slave owners deserve to be kicked to death.

Yes, Lincoln said slave owners deserve to be kicked to death, and other amazing things.   


But non one, other than a few newspapers at the time, reported Douglas actual  "Nigger" tirades.   It was common and acceptable then to just replace "Nigger" with "Negro"  in many circumstances.  Douglas talked so fast, it was hard to get all his words, anyway.

Douglas was even warned in the Senate, by Charles Sumner, to stop using the term "Nigger".   Douglas went right on using it, even though Southern Senators rarely used that term, and only in very limited context. 

But while running against Lincoln -- who had a history of anti-slavery behavior and quotes-- Douglas went for blood.  Over and over. 



 Quincy papers referred to Douglas "Nigger rants"  indicating it was a typical way for him to speak. 

 Charleston newspapers reported Douglas ran side to side of the stage screaming about Lincoln wanting your daughters to sleep with "Niggers".

This was the emotional center -- the power -- in Douglas powerful debates. He did not show this anger, this hate, when referring to other things.  But for "Niggers"  sleeping with your daughters?  He projected disgust. 

Douglas did so because it worked.  Douglas did not win despite those tirades, he won because of them.


 If you have 50 or 70 hours, and chose to read all of  Douglas's many speeches attacking Lincoln, and the newspapers Douglas controlled go after Lincoln, you will learn a different point of view than is often told us by teachers.

Douglas and "his"  newspapers would attack Lincoln -- Douglas most crudely  of all in person.

In fact, Douglas newspapers quoted Lincoln in a  jibberish way -- deliberately distorted.   The political reality was that newspapers were profoundly political, and everyone knew it.

He hit the public right between the eyes.  He did not mince words, no matter how cleaned up it was later. 

Your daughter will sleep with blacks.

Your wife will walk down the streets with blacks.

Blacks will be on the jury.

Your children will be with blacks in school.

No one left the debates confused.

And most people left against Lincoln, according to Bloomington papers, because Douglas was effective in his fear and hate mongering. 


 Lincoln once referred Douglas attacks  as "knives."

And the knives drew blood. Douglas won that election, and would have won the POTUS race in 1860 using the same words, but three men ran against Lincoln,  not just Douglas.  Thos three split the anti-Lincoln vote. 

Sixty percent of the people that voted rejected Lincoln -- he got slightly less than 40%.



If you use any quote from Lincoln to be his "position"  then why not use the quote where he said slave owners should be kicked to death?

Douglas would use Lincoln words about equality against him.

Douglas would use Lincoln's words about black's rights "under the Declaration of Independence".

Mr Lincoln should know better than that, he told the audience in every debate. The United States Supreme Court had ruled against blacks having rights under the Declaration of Independence. To say otherwise is "to preach revolution"

Lincoln is "obsessed"  with equality for "Niggers".

That kept Lincoln on the defense, in every Lincoln Douglas debates.  Lincoln had to spend a lot of time and energy to explain -- no, he was not advocating your daughter sleep with "Niggers".  No he was no pushing for blacks to get to vote, etc.

In fact, no one alive, no one anywhere ran for office advocating blacks sleep with your daughter.   We teach Lincoln as if he was "behind the curve"  and "reluctant".   Nonsense, Lincoln was radical -- as hell -- especially when you get all his actions and quotes. 

And we do not teach how Douglas effectively taunted Lincoln repeatedly for "wanting your daughter to sleep with Niggers".

The "sleep with Niggers"  comments were a stunning violation of decorum,  a crude and ugly spectacle according to some at the time.

But it worked, and that is what Douglas wanted. 

At best, you may find "historians"  giving a few words about this.  But no "historian" I have read, other than perhaps Michael Burlingame, makes it into the massively important aspect of the election, and of the county's mind set at the time.


Even the "abolition" candidates, the few in the East  qualified their positions about "social equality.  (abolitionist did not run for office, they made speeches)

Why not use Lincoln quotes that he will not let slavery spread,  and suggested he would hang those who tried to spread slavery and destroy the Union?

Why not use Lincoln's conversations where he said he had to destroy- - kill -- slavery carefully, comparing slavery to a den of snakes in bed with his children?

Why not use Lincoln's actions where he attempted to destroy the spread of slavery into the land we stole (yes stole) by the Mexican War?

Lincoln had to speak carefully.  He would be stupid, he would never get elected, he would never get anything done, if he spoke stupidly.

Those who claimed Lincoln was radical --were right. 


Repeatedly, Lincoln is made to appear ambivalent about slavery, or reluctant to end slavery,  or any manner of things.  But given his full statements,  and his full actions, Lincoln was "guilty as charged"  about being obsessed. 

'Any black person is equal to any white person, in their natural rights.... and should be protected by  Declaration of Independence.'

Douglas had every right to quote Lincoln at length, and he did so, pulling Lincoln speeches from a leather satchel he carried with him.

Only Douglas would quote LIncoln about equality, about the Declaration of Independence, and about the dangers of spreading slavery.  He would do fairly the  opposite of what historians  such Foner do today.

Douglas  would make much of Lincoln's quotes about equality.  And then tell the public how vile it would be for their daughters to "sleep with Niggers".

Here is a rundown of what Lincoln told the public Lincoln wanted, or what would happen if they voted for Lincoln

✔️ Your daughters to sleep with Niggers.

✔️  Your children to go to school with Niggers

✔️  Your wife will talk down the street with Niggers

✔️  Niggers will vote

✔️  Niggers will be on juries. 

✔️ and more.

Douglas  was NOT some run of the mill speaker. This was the most powerful speaker of that era, said Horace Greeley.  Douglas captivated crowds, held them spellbound.  He got them to yell back (at least in Knox College) "Down with Niggers. 



That's the real story of Lincoln Douglas debates, and we don't teach it in any US school that way -- meaning, candidly.  Not because there is any conspiracy, but for generations our text books have whitewashed this -- in fact, our text books  have never shown this basic, and ugly, part of our  history.

.  Allen C Guelzo is one of the few historians to mention it.   Even he does not make it central -- it's well back in the book, yet it should have been the first chapter.  Nor does Guelzo -- great historian though he is --show that newspapers at the time said downstate voters, 80% of them, believed Douglas.  

And that Douglas won because of it.

Douglas did not win despite this -- Douglas won BECAUSE of it, at least per newspapers at the time. 

 Overlapping reports at the time made it clear, including reports from the man who actually did short hand for the debates, that Douglas was dramatic  explicit, almost always used the word "Nigger" .

Where you read "Negro"  -- if it came from Douglas lips -- it was very likely "Nigger".  And Douglas spit the word out, newspapers said.  He was over the top dramatic. 

And that was the only issue Douglas treated that way -- yelling, running side to side of the stage, spitting the words out. 


Quincy papers said Douglas would "go into his Nigger rants".  Charleston papers said Douglas ran from side to side of the stage screaming about Lincoln and "Niggers". 


None of that -- absolutely none -- is in your text book in any candid way, nor in the typical teaching, even by  most "experts" about Lincoln Douglas debates.




Douglas did not stop there. 

 Douglas also told the crowds that he saw Lincoln, and a white woman, in a carriage with Frederick Douglass, the famous black abolitionist and former slave. That was the type of thing that could have gotten Lincoln attacked by some weak minded fool.

A white woman being with a black man, in a carriage -- especially after Douglas just told them Lincoln wants your daughter to sleep with blacks -- was a powder keg.  And Douglas loved to light that match -- his power depended on it. And he loved power. 



You probably were never told this -- Lincoln was considered "radical as hell."  

Not sorta radical, not kind of radical -- but "obsessed"  with "Nigger equality". 

Those who knew  him best,  said he was radial.  Were they stupid? No they were not stupid.  They were there -- and not just there,  they knew public sentiment. 

Mostly, they did not just go by a few quotes - they went by his actions, his full speeches, and his history.  Lincoln had a long history of attacking slavery.    



Lincoln, running for office, lost BECAUSE he was so radical compared to public sentiment. Lincoln parsed words as much as he could, but it was not enough.

Douglas explicitly accused Lincoln, in various speeches, of the following - remember, in the post dramatic way possible.

Lincoln's quote that slave owners deserve to be kicked to death, is an example of Lincoln's radical outburst that sometimes slipped by his careful restraint. 

In fact, Frederick Douglass, never known for being stupid, (he was a genius)  said Lincoln was "swift, radical, zealous and determined"  for equality for blacks.

See, LIncoln knew of Lincoln's actions -- radical actions. LIncoln knew of Lincoln's quotes -- the radical ones, too.

Above all Frederick Douglas knew that public sentiment  was against Lincoln -- and many, in fact most, people in Lincoln's state thought Lincoln was too radical. 

Did Frederick Douglas, or Stephen A Douglas, just need a few minutes with Eric Foner to straighten them out?

Probably not. 




Lincoln spoke of public sentiment often. With public sentiment you can do anything.

 Without it, you can do nothing.  Lincoln was not about to stupidly spit in the eye of public sentiment.   For one thing, he needed to get elected, and make sure that Jeff Davis ally Stephen A Douglas did not get into office.

If LIncoln had spit in the eye of public sentiment, he would have helped -- helped -- Douglas and Jeff Davis.  LIncoln knew that, even if you don't, and even if Foner and others did not tell you.



Most people who know much about Lincoln know he freed the slaves in Disctrict of Columbia in 1862.   He had the power to do that legally, and did so, in a practical way. He paid the slave owners.   

But before that, in Congress, Lincoln tried to do the same thing -- end slavery in District of Columbia.   Did you know he had tried to end slavery there almost 20 years earlier, in Congress?

There too, Lincoln  he tried to do it peacefully, in a way that actually worked.







Lincoln always cared about what would work.  

Lincoln compared slavery to a cancer -- it needed to be cut out, but cut out carefully.  

Lincoln also compared slavery to a den of snakes in bed with your children.  Lincoln said he had to kill those snakes, but in a way that did not harm his children.

To say Lincoln did not "care"  about slavery, or was nothing "special"  is stupid -- yes it is-- because he had a long history  where he focused on nothing but slavery - stopping it's growth, ending it where he could, gathering the public sentiment to end slavery, and then actually killing slavery, destroying chattel slavery completely.

Yes, Lincoln used words to do that, not just weapons when the war started.  Should Lincoln not have used words? 

 Is there some logic, some law, some principle, that I don't know about, that says LIncoln should have only used guns to stop slavery?  So another 100,000 men should have died instead?

So slavery should go on instead of Lincoln being wise about what he said?  No amount of guns, no amount of war, would end slavery.  Lincoln had to get public sentiment behind him -- and get it in the South too. He had to get people in Congress to pass the 13 Amendment -- no easy feat. 

He would have to get the public to ratify the 13th Amendment -- you may not know this, but his death in 1865 played a large role in getting people in the states to ratify the Amendment he signed personally, the 13th. 


Lincoln used words the entire time. He scarcely opened his mouth without a keen  awareness that what he said would effect the public on slavery in one way or another. 

He would rather pay to have slavery end-- and indeed he did pay, or the federal government did at his direction or appeal -- people in Kentucky and District of Columbia. 

Lincoln  would rather set a date in the future, as he tried to do in District of Columbia,  free the children from slavery from a certain date, anything to get the job done, he was willing to do.

Lincoln advocated peaceful approaches for two decades.   

Compare this to the South -- who used violence to spread slavery for three generations.  If you don't know how slavery spread -- this might help

Not once did Lincoln advocate violence to end slavery.  

Violence  was not practical, it would not work. There was not nearly enough support for such a stupid thing as war to end slavery for it to be a success. 

As one historian wrote "Lincoln never once broke connection with practicability."



 Lincoln had a history (see below) of kicking slavery in the ass,  a history everyone knew, but not in a John Brown way.

Not in a John C Fremont way, either.

 John Brown's way was stupid, because it did not work.  It did just the opposite of what he hoped, and got him killed, and  his sons killed. 

 Even John Brown's close friend, Frederick Douglass essentially admitted that Brown was stupid to do this, and refused to join him.

John Fremont tried to free slaves in Kentucky -- against Lincoln's orders.  He was not  hung, like Brown, but he very nearly caused 4 "border states" to join the Confederacy.

Fremont, nor LIncoln, had any legal right to free the slaves in Kentucky -- the way Fremont did it. 

 Lincoln did free the slaves in 1863 that were in "areas of rebellion"  as a war measure, as a military measure.  But only as a war measure.   Lincoln had to pass 13th Amendment, with Congressional approval,  and then after his death, the 13th Amendment had to be ratified by 2/3 of the states.

Lincoln knew this was much better, much more practical, that people could accept it, and respect it, later. By violence alone -- that would cause endless violence. 


Stupid things like slave rebellions would not work. Lincoln did not want the war -- the war  according to Southern leaders, was already going on. 

If you don't know the South was already at war -- already killing, already boasting about killing -- in 1856 on, read this.





Lincoln also had a history of radical statements, too.Not always polite and careful. 

Like in his Peoria speech where he said slave owners deserve to be kicked to death.

Like his statements that any black person is equal to any white person in all their rights under the Declaration of Independence, 

Lincoln had, in short a past that could be said - and was said -- to be "obsessed for equality for the Nigger."

Lincoln was boxed in a corner by his past actions against slavery, and his very strong statements for equality.

Stephen A Douglas, and other detractors, did not need to exaggerate the facts or make up quotes. Lincoln's "radical" past caused him to lose to Douglas in 1858, the year of the debates.  Remember that -- amazingly, most people do not know this.

Lincoln lost the election where he debated Douglas.

And you will see, he lost because Douglas screamed at Lincoln and to the crowd that Lincoln "wants your daughter" to sleep with "Niggers"  according to newspaper in Bloomington Illinois. 

If you ever hear these folks that claim Lincoln just used slavery to get votes -- they are a stupid person.

In fact, the most powerful speaker of the 19th century, Stephan A Douglas, not only yelled repeatedly to the crowds that Lincoln was "obsessed with Nigger equality"   -- Douglas ran from side to side of the stage, screaming it. 

This should be common knowledge, but few history teachers know it.  Or if they know it, at all, they assume it was a trivial thing.  Not trivial at all - it is, according to Bloomington Illinois newspapers, how Douglas won.

Bet you didn't know that.

Bet Eric Foner and 100 others didn't tell you that.

Lincoln LOST the Senate race - because he was so radical.   I know, I know, you are told a dozen ways Lincoln was anything but radical.  

He was "reluctant"  they told you.  He "didn't really care,"  they told you.   Such bullshit.  Lincoln already had along history of actions and words against slavery.   Yes, he did have to parse words-- speak carefully.  And he wisely did so.   Still Lincoln was "outside" what the public would accept about "Nigger rights".

When you read a quote by Lincoln,  or any of ten quotes, you can easily believe those who detract from Lincoln now -- after all, he did say that.

There could be no more to the story, right?



Read the FULL debates,  read all of his words, in context.   Over and over -- and over -- and over, Lincoln would say something, to validate public sentiment, like the public fear "of Nigger men" sleeping with their daughters as Douglas put it repeatedly,  and respond to that fear.

Lincoln lost that election anyway -- because he defended the rights of blacks "under the Constitution"     Lincoln claimed repeatedly that any black person is equal to any white person, in their rights to "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" 

That was the only practical way to respond to charges that he "wanted your daughters to sleep with Niggers". 

It was not enough for Lincoln to win -- he lost, remember?  But it was enough to change the minds of a lot of people about race, and about "Nigger rights"  under the Declaration of Independence.

Those who quote Lincoln to detract from him never tell you that.  


As crude and cruel as Douglas was about this central issue,  Lincoln responded with kindness and tact. 

"As to marrying with Negroes"  Lincoln would say, not "about Niggers sleeping with your daughters".

Lincoln said he "could not tell" if Douglas meant Lincoln would "marry a Negro woman,"   but if Douglas did mean that, Lincoln explained "I do not need to have her for a wife or a slave."

" I can just let her go.  In certain respects, she is not my equal, just as I am not the equal of Judge Douglas in certain respects.   But in her natural right to eat the bread she makes with her own hands, she IS my equal and the equal of anyone" 

-- "but in their right to keep the bread they made with their own hands, they ARE my equal, the equal of Judged Douglas, and the equal of any man".

Lincoln used this rhetorical device- - a set up really -- in nearly every speech he ever made. It is not an uncommon rhetorical device at all, lawyers use it frequently. 

IN fact, Lincoln would have lost again, for POTUS, in 1860, but 3 candidates ran against him.  Any one of them, by themselves, could have defeated him.  Lincoln only got 39% of the vote.  

The other 3, any of them alone, were in line with public sentiment on equality for blacks.   They all - - each one of them -- agreed with Dred Scott decision that blacks are inferior beings, and are not to be considered under the law as human beings (persons).

Lincoln alone - of those four - railed that blacks are human beings, and deserve all rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.  

The public sentiment was against Lincoln on that score in 1860.




John Brown was more radical than Lincoln, but his stupidity at Harpers (even his friend Frederick Douglass thought Brown did more harm that good)  set back the cause for which he died.  Brown fed right into the false allegation that abolitionist were trying to get the white race killed by their slaves.

The Peroia  speech, where Lincoln said slave owners deserve to be kicked to death (if you like it to be quoted in that way) is a remarkable job -- Lincoln laid out the treachery of Southern leaders, without sounding like an abolitionist.

It was the aim of Dred Scott decision, said Lincoln -- correctly  -- to remove "humanity" from the slaves.

 Dred Scott decision actually referenced blacks as "inferior beings" nine times, and further ordered-- yes ordered-- that blacks be seen as property, not as human beings (not as persons). 

Again, and again, and again, in various words, Lincoln railede against that travesty,  in respectful manner, but with extreme precision and a keen understanding of history.

Those who deny humanity in the slave (in other words, claim as Dred Scott decision did, that blacks are not human) deserve nothing but contempt, kicking, and death.

Radical enough for ya? 

You can't determine from the words alone, who exactly Lincoln thought deserved to be kicked to death.  And that's why he said it that way. 






Lincoln's radical efforts to end US killings to spread slavery, and to ban slavery in DC, ten years before the US civil war....

Lincoln had a long history of kicking slavery in the ass.  Most people don't know it, it's not taught as basic. 

Lincoln's long history of attacking slavery sure is not highlighted in the books that claim he was reluctant or ambivilant or did not care about slavery.

You simply can't give full voice to Lincoln's amazing strong, and radical, efforts to fight slavery for years,  if you then run out  your nonsense that Lincoln was "nothing special" or didn't care, until later in the war about slavery. 

The most inane comments about Lincoln must be that Lincoln only used slavery to get votes.   Quite the opposite, bing against slavery cost Lincoln several elections, and it was a fluke he was ever elected to POTUS after  his attempts in Congress to kick slavery in the ass. 

Being too candid in speeches probably got him the bullet to the brain.  As you will see below. 




 Lincoln tried to stop the Mexican war  -- because  he knew and even Southern leaders knew, it was a war to double the size of US land allowing slavery.   The Mexican war was popular -- it gave huge new land to the United States.

But Lincoln was against it. 

Lincoln did not rail against the war in public, but he knew it was just one of a long line of violent actions by slavey power to spread slavery.  Slavery always spread by violence, and always by deceit,. That is what happened in Mexican War, and the Kansas wars, and the Civil War. 

All essentially started by Slave Power for one purpose -- to spread slavery.  LIncoln's letter to Speed  is a keen insight into the history and mindset of the few men that pushed slavery by war,  and violence, repeatedly. 

Your teacher and text books, though, would have to be honest and candid about the Mexican War,  to understand how radical Lincoln was.  You may see a sentence or two in some history text books about Mexican War and slavery. 

But you won't see it as people then saw it -- namely Lincoln and slave owners saw it. Mexican war was a land grab, a killing spree, an armed robbery, a set of murders, and a sacrifice of lives of our own soldiers, to bring more power to slave states.  

It wasn't just Lincoln who thought that.

Southern leaders Henry Clay thought much the same thing.   And he knew all the people connected to "slave power"  extremely well. 



Polk told the public that the US Army was attacked "on our own soil"  by Mexicans.   Our "honor"  demanded that Mexico pay a price for those killings.

The price of our honor  turned out to be about half of Mexico's land, virtually all of the valuable land -- including California. 

 Lincoln stood up to President Polk about the war, demanded to know the "spot" where the supposed attack by  Mexican Army happened.

Lincoln  did not call the President a liar, he did not have to.  He was  not  even disrespectful in tone. Asking Polk to prove or document the spot, was a clear insult to the President by itself. No one thought otherwise.

Everyone knew that Lincoln was right, anyway.  It was an open secret that South wanted the land for power power, for more slaves.  

There was no spot. There was no attack on the US soil.  Nor could Polk show otherwise.  Polk did not even bother to respond. 


If anything, Henry Clay was more blunt about saying so than Lincoln.  One of the reasons Clay, a slave owner, was a hero to young Lincoln. 


Lincoln was not only against that war -- for the reasons we mentioned --- Lincoln then tried 40 times to outlaw slavery in the land we stole in our killing sprees (and they were killing sprees). 

Lincoln could not stop the war but he did try to stop slavery from going into that land, just stolen.  As radical as he could be,  and one of the few that tried. 


Of course, the people who just manufactured a war to spread slavery were not about to agree with  freshman Congressmen Lincoln to prevent the spread of slavery in land they killed innocent people  to acquire.  

 But Lincoln tried.  

Forty times.

Forty times. 

Still sound like Lincoln was "nothing special"  about slavery?

Still sound like Lincoln "only came late" to the issue of slavery?

It's true, Lincoln always -- always -- sought a compromise that would work, meaning it would be acceptable to the South.   Others were more strident - pushing legislation that had no possible chance to pass,  

This was Lincoln's genius, not his weakness. He could have, if he so chose, been as extreme as any abolitionist. But as Lincoln pointed out, no one on either side seemed willing to give an inch.   If the could stop the spread of slavery, in any way, the first time, they could stop the spread of slavery again.

As it was -- with logger heads, and personal animosity quite high, the South simply rolled on, getting much more land for slavery. 



Lincoln and others failed to get an agreement to stop slavery in the land just stolen. 

Lincoln then, immediately,  the same year, tried to end slavery in the District of Columbia.  

Why don't most people know that?  He was polite about it, he used his wit,  his humor.

He tried everything. Negotiations, offering payment, offering delayed time -- a date in the future, anything.  There was no chance on earth to get an agreement by insulting the slave owners, by yelling, by creating hard feelings.   If yelling, creating hard feelings had worked, slavery would have been defeated and ended long before Lincoln got to Congress.

Plus,  there was little support  to end slavery anyway -- much less support to end it by force.  Agreeing to end slavery gradually, over time, with compensation if need be, was better than the endless spread of slavery.

Lincoln used legal means -- even during the war -- to end slavery.   He had sworn to uphold even the odious Dred Scott decision,  that the government must protect slavery. He obeyed the law of the land until he could personally sign the 13th Amendment (though his signature was not required,  he signed it).

He had to get Dred Scott decision overturned, and did so, by the 13th Amendment. 


More than that, Lincoln knew people, North and South, were terrified by what could happen if slavery was ended.

Black males could walk down the street with white women?

Black men could "sleep with" your daughters?

Blacks would be on juries?

Black children would go to schools with your children?

Stephen A Douglas painted that picture -- only with extreme energy, saying "Nigger"  almost exclusively, according to a man  who used shorthand during the Lincoln Douglas debates.


Lincoln  Regularly called 

It was not always "Negro Worshipper".   

Despite everything did, all his careful "moderate" and respectful behavior toward slave owners and the South, Lincoln was hated by Douglas -- or at least, Douglas adopted that hate for political purposes. 

Black Republican was a common term for Lincoln, in many newspapers.  But that was the same sentiment, just without "Nigger" reference.  Douglas called him "obsessed for Nigger equality"  and gave the most stunning visual imagery in his speeches possible.

Lincoln wants your daughters to sleep with Niggers.

You just can not exceed that for harsh, ugly, and if believed, violence inducing insult. 

"Lincoln wants your daughter to sleep with Niggers."

All that from the Lincoln Douglas debates -- why don't we teach that?  Douglas was very smart to do this -- it worked. This was the public sentiment, Douglas and Lincoln both knew public sentiment very well. 

Douglas won, again and again, because of his speaking style, which was backed up by his newspaper allies.  Douglas would actually ask "Do you want your children to go to school with Niggers?"

If you want such things - Lincoln is your man.

Douglas was even more vile, when Lincoln was not standing right there. 

Quincy papers said Douglas would go off on "Nigger rants" spitting out the words, and that he looked drunk. 


Others were killed, even in Illinois, during Lincoln's life,  for being "too radical for Niggers". 

In fact, one of the Lincoln Douglas debates was held in the city where Elijah Lovejoy was killed by a mob for publishing antislavery newspaper-- Alton. 

A Newspaper in Quincy sarcastically called for the DEATH of Frederick Douglas, for simply speaking against slavery in Kansas.   It was, indeed, against the law at that time to speak against slavery in Kansas.   As you will see, LIncoln went to Kansas 

If you do not understand how deeply blacks were hated -- or feared - by most whites in  1858 Illinois (and other places) you can't possibly understand anything about Lincoln.  Or the Civil War. 

Go slap your teacher if all this is new to you.  But most of them are not taught this either.  So don't go slap then. 



Lincoln was personally popular, people came from miles around to hear  his jokes and stories before he got in politics.

Most people don't know Lincoln had a reputation for humor, for sounding like  people in the community, and acting like them.  He was a "humorist"  long before he was a politician. Think of Robin Williams in 1835 Illinois.   If Lincoln had been pro slavery-- or just never mentioned slavery -- he could have defeated Douglas. 


In almost every sentence of the debates, Lincoln tried to assure the public he was for "the Declaration of Indepence"  and the rights in our Constitution that "all men are created equal" .  and have therefore  an inalienable right to life, liberty and happiness".

Lincoln denied he was "for perfect social equality".  

When Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting white women to "sleep with blacks"  he had to respond very carefully.

Instead of insulting Douglas back, Lincoln rephrased the vile crude (and probably drunken) remark,   and said  "If Judge Douglas means me to marry a black woman, I can not say, but if he does,  I do not need to marry a black woman. I can just let  her alone.   In some ways, she is not my equal.

But in her right to eat the bread she made with her own hands -- SHE IS my equal, and the equal to Judge Douglas.

Again and again, in every debate, Douglas accused Lincoln of "fermenting rebellion"  -- even of declaring war upon the South -- by such radical statements.  Douglas drews special focus on Lincoln statements that "slavery must end, or the Union will end,  we can not be half slave and halve free..... we will be all one thing or another."

That was a radical statement - and even Lincoln's friends asked him to walk it back.  He refused.

Dred Scott decision did in fact say blacks were not human beings (not persons)  and must be seen as property, not persons.

Lincoln repeatedly warned that if Dred Scott decision was not overturned, and if the federal government had to protect slavery, there was no legal basis for any state to reject slavery or keep it out.

Douglas, away from LIncoln, not face to face,  would call LIncoln a "Traitor" who was against the troops in time of war because Lincoln was against the Mexican War.

  Of course Lincoln was not against the troops in time of war. He was opposed to the war -- because it was really a killing spree to spread slavery, but he voted for the appropriations to pay the soldiers.


Douglas was not the only politician accusing anyone who was against slavery of being "Negro Worshipper" .  The same held true in most states, even Northern states

In the 1850's people used the term "abolitionist" to be something like we call "child molesters" that day.  John Palmer, a friend of Lincoln, wrote in 1890 that even by then, people seemed to forget how "abolitionist" was a gross insult a few years ago.

Abolitionist, as it was practically used by politicians in 1850s,  was someone who would have black men sleep with white women, have mixed marriages.  There were literally no politicians who would run for office claiming black men should sleep with or marry with white women.

Even most of the famous abolitionist at the time, had to be very careful of what they said, and how they said it. 




IN 1860

Lincoln lost repeatedly  -- and likely only won President race because three men ran against him.

Lincoln did not even get 40% of the popular vote.  Any of those three, running by themselves, would have defeated Lincoln -- like Douglas defeated him in 1858.

That was just what worked in politics at the time. IT was a reality Lincoln had to deal with every time he spoke.  





Lincoln was focused -- always -- on public sentiment.

If that meant pay slave owners,  fine.  If that meant gradual emancipation, fine.  

If that meant overturn Dred Scott decision, do it gradually,  voting on slavery in honest elections - whatever it took. 

Lincoln knew -- first hand -- that any politician who ran as a "Nigger lover"  not only lost,  they could be in danger. 

People today think there were others in politics that were more radical than Lincoln on equality.  Not really, no one running for office dared say they were for black men "sleeping with white women".

No one knew who would win a civil war over slavery, and almost no one would have fought for the North if anyone had told them they were at war to free slaves in the South.

Lincoln was focused on stopping the SPREAD of slavery, and wisely so.   Just like your cancer surgeon is wise to focus on stopping the SPREAD of cancer in your body, when doing anything else might kill you.

Lincoln compared slavery to a spreading cancer, and said repeatedly that the Union would die (end) or slavery would end.  He said this from 1858 on -- and he was accused of declaring war on the South with this statement.

He refused, even when asked by his friends, to walk back that "Union will end, or slavery will end" talk.

Lincoln repeated it at least 100 times. 


While it's true Lincoln was not one of the paid "abolitionist"  who were often very careful of where they spoke,   he was far more radical and blunt than others -- which made Lincoln lose elections,   Lincoln LOST elections because he was "too radical for Niggers"

Lincoln did learn -- had to learn -- to parse words to get even part of the vote. 

If you ever hear some fool say Lincoln just "used slavery" to get public support,   you can be sure that fool has no clue whatsoever what was going on in Illinois in the 1850's.


It was against the law for a black to even come to Illinois, and the punishment was whipping -- 39 lashes, for just coming to Illinois. Then 39 lashes for each week the black man stayed in Illinois. 


History teachers love to give "narratives"   and historians exist, publish or fail to public, get attention of fail to get attention, based on the narrative,  the slant.   They get rich or not, depending on the narratives.   It is human nature.

It's not a big plot.  Or even a little plot. It's just what separates one history book, one biography, from another, in almost every case.  

Facts, of course should be far more important, but facts are chosen, to an astonishing extent, by all of use, history teachers are no exception, by what fits what we consider our wonderful narrative.


Others in Illinois were killed -- or their political death assured -- if they gave even one speech that spoke of "perfect equality".  

You could be  hated -- it was not acceptable politically -- to even demand blacks be treated as equals "under the law" as the Declaration of Independence declared "all men are created equal".  

 Believe it or not, most folks DID NOT believe blacks were "fully human"  but some kind of sub species.   The United States Supreme Court actually ordered -- yes ordered-- blacks to be seen not as human beings (not persons) but as property. 

Not only the Supreme COurt ordered blacks to be seen as not human, not persons,  much of the public did not consider blacks as human for purpose of the law.   They could be enslaved, tortured, kept in slave pens or on plantations, whatever the white man with power decided.,  And there was no consensus, no popular will, against that. 

Lincoln insisted the most radical view -- that blacks and whites were equal under the law.  



Yet Lincoln did "Bring the Thunder'  time and time again, in very careful ways. In speeches and in actions, Lincoln brought the thunder. 

  He declared repeatedly -- after a careful build up -- that any black person is equal to any white person in their basic rights under the Declaration of Independence.    This was not popular, and not real wise to be this powerful about it -- Lincoln lost repeatedly, remember that. 

It takes time to read Lincoln's long speeches, it's easier to just get 20 or 30 words, quote those, and think you know all there is to know about history and Lincoln.


Lincoln brought the thunder too, in the Civil War.  When he could, he did. And he got the job done. 

Lincoln had a long history of doing all he could, when he could, to end slavery.  And that started long before he was elected President.

Why the hell don't people know Lincoln's radical history of kicking slavery in the ass, as much as he could, where he could, when he could?


  Narratives in history are a lot like narratives in politics......  our  belief in a narrative has more to do with the self confidence and demeanor of the speaker, than it has to do with  the facts.

For example, if you know how radical as hell Lincoln was -- guys like Foner, who is first rate as far as notations and trivia goes, could not so easily get away with telling you Lincoln "evolved"  or was "reluctant".   

You could -- and Foner could -- arrange the facts differently, and make you think Lincoln was the most radical white politician in the 1850's to destroy slavery.  

Why not just repeat those radical Lincoln quotes 100 times in your book.  Why not just focus on  Lincoln's actions radical actions to stop slavery, long before he became President?

Sadly, radical  alone would not work to kill slavery. Lincoln knew that. So he was not always radical.  No one who got elected could be radical as the famous "abolitionist" of the day -- and those radical abolitionist  could not get elected dog catcher, much less President.

Even the most "radical" abolitionist would not be so stupid as to push for "total social equality" - -Stephen A Douglas and others had made it quite impossible to advocated for "total social equality"  because that meant "black men sleeping with your daughter".

Our history text books, and our historians, rarely even mention how men like Stephen A Douglas, and thousands of others,  made the public think in those terms -- black men will sleep with your daughters.  Your children will go to to school with "Niggers".  None of that comes through in any clear way in our text books.

Lincoln had to deal with the reality -- not with the watered down bullshit we are taught, which white washes the real central issue of slavery.  Ending the spread of slavery, said Lincoln's enemies, meant your daughters will sleep with "Niggers".

Is that what you want?   And the crowds yelled "No".  In the Lincoln Douglas debates, Douglas would get the public to scream that they did not want their daughters to "sleep with Niggers". 

It's about time you learned that. Lincoln sure knew it, he was there. 

Lincoln had to kill slavery wisely -- so that is how he did it. 



Southern leaders knew Lincoln was a radical.    Southern leaders and Northern newspapers accused him over and over of being radical. 

Were they stupid? 

Were they lying? 

Lincoln had to get elected in a place and at a time when blacks were hated and feared by most people in the North.  And in a few minutes, you may know it, too. 


If radical anti-slavery speeches by itself, ended slavery, slavery would have died off before it even started.  Lincoln was plenty radical in his speeches, if you read them all, not just edited slices. 

But exposing slavery as vile was not enough, now that slavery existed in most of the USA geographically.  Now that Southern leaders had killed to spread slavery (see below) and pledged their lives and honor to spread slavery more.

Slavery - and the violence that went with it-- was now entrenched.  

Slavery was like a group of snakes in bed with your children, Lincoln said.

He intended to kill slavery -- he would and did kill slavery.

But he had to do so wisely.  So that is what he did.  And at times that meant talking about Union. No shit.  As if that was  horrible.  Southern leaders were boasting about killing to spread slavery - Foner never mentions it.  Lincoln wisely at times spoke about Union and that's bad?

Holy shit, we have let fools and liars dominate our text books.

How about showing the facts? Southern leaders boasting about killing to spread slavery, their War Ultimatums, and how Lincoln defeated that, should be taught in every school in the US.

And should have been taught all along. 



Frederick Douglass -- is it just possible he knew anything? 

Anything at all, about slavery?  About Lincoln?  About political reality, social reality, of the day?

Of course it's possible.  

For example, Lincoln shouted in one speech that slave owners deserve nothing but contempt, and to be kicked to death.

KICKED TO DEATH. Douglass knew that.

Yes, Lincoln said slave owners should be kicked to death.  And Lincoln was hated by many for being so radical. Douglass knew that, too.

Lincoln  also said slavery was like group of snakes that needed to be killed -- carefully, wisely (and he was right). 

Lincoln also once  said he would not let the South spread slavery, and he would hang those who tried to spread slavery by violence.

Radical enough for you?

Slave owners deserve to be kicked to death?  That's not radical?>

Line up 10 or 12 of those quotes, and then try to tell everyone Lincoln was  nothing special, or reluctant, or "didn't really care"  about slavery.  Which is exactly why guys like Foner do not highlight Lincoln's radical statements and his actions.

Lincoln was the guy who, from the moment of Kansas Act on, did little all day, every day, at his own expense, to set slavery up so he or others could kick it to death.  

Lincoln ALREADY had been in Congress -- 1847 and 1848. He was radical there to end slavery in the lands just taken from Mexico, and to end slavery in District of Columbia.  In fact, Lincoln tried 40 times to either stop the Mexican War -- because it was a war to vastly increase the size of slavery in US - or to stop the spread of slavery there, when he could not stop the war.

Douglass knew that about Lincoln, too.

In short, Lincoln did little in Congress but fight slavery, and he was hated for it, even by many in Illinois. 

What he did was radical -- stood up to the sitting President,  called attention the fact Mexican War was actually a killing spree to spread slavery.   

Then Lincoln tried to stop that killing spree, and stop the spread of slavery into the land just stolen.

Then Lincoln tried to end slavery in District of Columbia.


For those fools who claim Lincoln was not against slavery, or that he was "nothing special"   -- kindly show who the hell else did this?   Lincoln was hated by many for doing this.  He was attacked for it. Just like he was attacked for being a "negro worshipper"  and attacked for being "obsessed with equality for the Nigger".

Just like he got a bullet to the brain after he dared speak about voting rights for blacks.

I guess those people alive at the time, were all stupid? 

Lincoln didn't really care about slavery?  Seriously?

Such bullshit.  But stupid people not only don't know these things, when you tell them of things like this, they stick with their stupidity.   Facts do not change hard core fools, or those who profit from, or have espoused, such nonsense. 

Lincoln not only cared about slavery -- he kicked it to death.  

So of course he cared about slavery. He was always looking for a way to kill slavery -- and he found it. 


Lincoln explained it as well as anyone.  Over and over, and over.

His first job was to keep the Union together -- because (and this is the important part) keeping the Union together would destroy slavery.  Slavery would destroy the Union, or the Union would destroy slavery.

Over, and over, and over.  The House Divide Speech covered this, but so did just about every other utterance from his mouth.  We will be all one thing, or the other.  One will end --if slavery is allowed to spread, like a cancer, it will kill the host.  Like a group of snakes in bed with your child -- slavery had to be killed.

First Lincoln had to get elected, and he had to get public support for kicking slavery to death.  

Douglass knew all that, and spoke of Lincoln in those terms -- that Lincoln was "bound" to appeal to public sentiment. 

 Do you think the great Frederick Douglass just needed fifteen minutes with that history teacher who claimed Lincoln "didn't really care" about slavery, or even more goofy (yes, goofy) that "Lincoln only used slavery as an issue to get political power."

Southern leaders agreed -- in their own words, they explained it, too.  They used the federal government to expand slavery -- by killing and torture.  If they could not use the federal government to spread slavery, they would create their own country, and spread slavery that way.

 They would expand slavery  or the white race would be exterminated.   And they had the power of the federal government to do so -- unless Lincoln was elected.

Lincoln was elected.

Still, Southern leaders, in writing, said they had a duty-- not just a right -- to spread slavery, by violence, and by violence using the federal government as the instrument of that violence. 

For a more complete understanding of Southern leaders War Ultimatums and killing sprees to spread slavery, using the federal government as the killers,  see this 

Southern leaders made this very very clear.   If they could not spread slavery in the Union, they would destroy the  Union.  They tried to spread slavery for two generations, and were about to spread slavery into the West, against states rights.

They could not spread slavery under the US Constitution, unless they killed and tortured to do so.  They tried the killing and torture.   Lincoln was not about to allow more killing by the federal government (yes, the federal government under South control had killed to spread slavery).

Unless you understand that, you can't understand Lincoln or the US Civil War 

Remember this -- Lincoln had but one demand. No more spread of slavery.  Southern leaders had but one demand.  The spread of slavery.

Southern War Ultimatums, of 1856 and 1861, the killing sprees by Southern leaders, the incessant violence Southern leaders used and their own words and actions justifying their killing sprees, is basic to understand anything about the US Civil War.



Douglass knew that Lincoln was lucky (as was the world) that he did not get a bullet to the brain  sooner. Douglass also knew exactly why Lincoln got the bullet to  his brain, hours after Lincoln gave a speech -- his last -- about voting rights for blacks.

The fact most people do not know that is a testament to the Trash Lincoln school of bullshit, __________________________________________________


You can learn a lot from guys like Foner, if you ignore his narrative. 

Foner made a career out of making Lincoln seem "reluctant" to end slavery,  or "nothing special" about slavery. Or that Lincoln was "willing to be inconsistent".

Foner is like the guy  Newt Gingrich -- strongly on all sides of every issue.    Somewhere, on some page, he will give Lincoln credit for ending slavery, but on 20 other pages, give Lincoln an F or D in fighting slavery. On every issue, from Lincoln trying to stop the Mexican War, to Lincoln trying to end slavery in District of Columbia, even to the speech that got Lincoln killed -- the one about voting rights for blacks -- Foner tries to paint Lincoln as ambivalent or weak, to fit his narrative. 

Lincoln got a bullet to the brain for that speech about voting rights, and if Foner had done his job as a historian to explain that -- and how radical voting rights were -- he could not then belittle Lincoln, which he did, for that speech.

Lincoln was accused, over and over, and over, for being a "Nigger Worshipper"  that wanted  your daughters to "sleep with Niggers"  and would "have Niggers vote, and go to school with your children".

Lincoln was lucky he was not shot sooner.  

When Lincoln made the speech about voting rights, though he tried to parse words, he did not parse it enough. Lincoln said "educated blacks"  and "in time"  they should get voting rights.

But that was too much for Booth.

Booth changed his plan from kidnap to kill Lincoln, because now Lincoln had proven he was a "Nigger worshipper"  that others had made him seem.  Now Lincoln validated those, like Douglas, who said Lincoln would give "Niggers"  the right to vote.

But Foner did not show it in that light. Foner could have shown you how amazing -- and how dangerous -- it was for Lincoln to even mention voting rights for blacks.  You think Foner did not know that? Hell yes  he knew that.  But Foner, even on this speech that got Lincoln a bullet to the brain, used it to make Lincoln seem "nothing special" .

What a shit head Foner is.  I say that in all due respect. 

That's the problem with narratives -- lying bastards, or geniuses, fools,  or  hustlers can bend them any way they want.  

And Foner is by no means the worst,  in fact, he often gives Lincoln credit, as if Lincoln is one of his students, and his job is to give Lincoln a grade. 

Booth already gave Lincoln his grade - a bullet to the brain.

And Lincoln already gave slavery its grade -- F -- finished.

See how that works?

 Point is,  you need all the facts, not just the facts  the liars, fools, or hustlers want  you to have. 


Foner and folks like him never --ever -- make the case of how stunningly radical, kick ass, and even violent Lincoln was, to end slavery.  

Oh Foner could make that argument, if he wanted to.

But he did  not want to.  Foner does excellent footnotes, has many important facts in his books, but he chose to relay those facts in a way that didn't make it clear how kick ass radical he was.

Because Lincoln was kick ass radical -- his enemies knew it, very very well. 



Lincoln would have loved to have let the South "go"  if that would end the spread of slavery.   

But as a nation, officially,  Southern leaders promised endless violence to spread slavery.    It's not my fault you are not taught about Southern War Ultimatums and their killing sprees.  If the South had simply obeyed the law, not killed to spread slavery, not tortured, not sent killers to Kansas, not issued War Ultimatums and then killed to bring those War Ultimatums to pass,  maybe they could have had their own country.

But that is not what they did. Nor what they boasted about.  That is not what their leaders issued as War Ultimatums.  Already, long before Lincoln was even elected, Southern leaders were killing to spread slavery.  Now, even after Lincoln was elected, the South issued War Ulatimums and had killers spreading slavery.  It's not my fault you are not taught these basic things.  Lincoln knew them well. 

There were many in his own party that wanted to just "let the South go"  including Frederick Douglass himself. Frederick Douglass and white abolitionist hated our Constitution, and wanted to kick the South out, create a new constitution.

    Lincoln knew the only way to end slavery was to keep the Union together.   Slavery could not spread in the UNION,  if Southern states did not kill to spread slavery. Keeping the Union together meant -- and the South leaders said this, too -- slavery could not spread. 

So Lincoln spoke of Union -- and wisely so.  That was the only way to get people in the North to support putting down the "rebellion".    We hear those quotes often -- as if Lincoln never made any other quotes.

Lincoln actually explained it repeatedly,  and well, when you know all his speeches,   One would live, one would die.  Slavery would die, or the Union would end.

When Lincoln said this -- as he did -- in the Lincoln Douglas debates, Douglas claimed Lincoln was declaring war on the South by these words.

Lincoln's own friends asked him to walk back those extreme words about the Union will end, or slavery will die.   Lincoln refused.   It was basic.  Hold the union together, and slavery can not spread,   Do not hold it together, and for all time, there may never be such a country based on  the Declaration of Independence - "all men are created equal".

When Lincoln was fighting the Civil War, he fought, and explained that he fought, so that our nation, where "all men are created equal"  can continue.  There was never a nation like it before, and may never be again, if we allow slavery to spread, and for the Declaration of Independence to be cast aside by the Dred Scott decision. 


Outside of the Union, the South would be free to kill to spread slavery. Lincoln knew that, and proceeded on that basis. Southern leaders knew that, and proceeded on that basis too -- first killing to spread slavery while in the Union, but when that did not work as planned, they wanted to kill to spread slavery OUTSIDE of the Union.

A basic truth Foner never explained.



Well, willing to be inconsistent is one way of saying it, another way -- Lincoln was eager to set up slavery so he could kill it, which he did.   Depends how you arrange the facts, and if you show them all.

Lincoln explained his own metaphor for slavery -- the group of snakes in bed with your child.  It would be easy to kill a snake if you saw it coming.   But this snake --slavery -- was now in bed with your children. (slavery and hatred of black men if they "slept with your daughter)   was very much part of the United States mind set, and legal system..

So fun though it might be for Lincoln to just start playing a king and outlawing slavery on his own, he had to obey the laws- - and he could not alienate the public, most of whom did not care if slavery spread or not, and many hated the idea of black men suddenly free to "walk down the street"  with white women.

So Lincoln could not  just go whacking at  snake with an ax. He used this story, and it's very apt.  Lincoln must kill slavery carefully, not stupidly.  Stupid would not work here.

Lincoln did exactly that.  He wisely spoke of Union, when needed, as he kept kicking slavery to death.  Not that hard to understand. Even history teachers could grasp that, no matter which text book they got stuck with.


Most people, as Lincoln well knew, even in the North,  did not want to end slavery if that meant "Niggers"  would be able to "walk down the street by white women".

Lincoln's entire political career was extremely difficult, because anyone who was against even the spread of slavery, was instantly called "Nigger Worshipper" - or "black Republican".   

It  happened not only to Lincoln, but to everyone who dared come out against the spread of slavery.  And that worked -- men like Douglas won, again, and again and again.

Most history teachers can't even tell you what Douglas won in 1858 -- he won, according to newspapers at the time, because the public believed Lincoln wanted their daughters to "sleep with Niggers".

Now -- where on earth do you think they got that idea?

From a duck?  From a dream?   No. They got that idea from Stephen A Douglas and the newspapers which repeated his hateful attacks on Lincoln.

See -- you really need to know what the hell happened. Not just a few quotes. 



Lincoln did get "off message"  at times -- like when when he said slave owners should be kicked to death.  Or later, when Lincoln said in the Lincoln Douglas debates, that he would hang those who killed to spread slavery.

Douglas  had a satchel with him during the debates -- and he would pull out Lincoln's speeches and quotes for equality.  Just equality.  Under the law.

Simple equality under the law, under the Declaration of Independence, is what Lincoln pleaded for -- time and again. That was radical -- you may think that's ordinary stuff, then and now. Oh hell no.  Douglas called Lincoln "radical"  and a "traitor"  for simply saying the Dred Scott decision was wrong -- that blacks should be considered human beings, not property.

The Taney Court had actually and specifically ruled that blacks were not human beings (not persons)  but property, and as such they had no rights which white men need respect.

Lincoln also spoke of killing slavery, the fact slavery will end or the Union will end, one or the other must end.   Slavery will spread, or slavery will die, and he was not going to let it spread.



Astonishingly, most high school history teachers don't seem to know  Lincoln stood up to President Polk, and politely, but firmly, demanded to know where the "spot" was that Mexico attacked US?

If they teach that -- and they should -- they never teach that the Mexican War was, as Lincoln and others said, actually a war by slave power to spread slavery --to double the size of slavery by stealing land from Mexico.  We stole about half of Mexico's land, and we killed Mexicans, they did not kill us, to start that war.

Once we could claim that Mexican's attacked US, President Polk declared our honor had been offended, and we must punish Mexico for the assault.  It was all contrived, of course, and Lincoln knew it. So did others like slave owner and Southern leader Henry Clay, Lincoln's  hero. 

Of course, since your history teacher won't tell you our killing sprees against Mexico was made up treachery and murder -- they give you some double speak about "Manifest Destiny"  and every school child in the US for the last 130 years have seen those words in their history text book,

No school child has ever seen in their text book that US killed to start the Mexican War, then kept killing until they "agreed" to "sell" us half their land --and  by far the most valuable land they had, California. 

 Lincoln stood up against the popular war by demanding the President show the spot where Mexico attacked the US. He knew there was no such spot, and so did Polk.  

Lincoln was hated by many for that, for the rest of his life, and Douglas used it against him in the Lincoln Douglas debates, later.

And Lincoln was just getting started. 

He then tried 40 times -- 40 times -- to stop the spread of slavery into the land the US just stole from Mexico.  He could not get support of his efforts, but he tried 40 times. 

Did I mention 40 times?   That was after he tried to stop the Mexican War itself, he tried to stop the spread of slavery there 40 times.

Your history teacher isn't stupid,  he or she probably just teaches from the "book" - and our text books don't tell you things like this. 



 Stephen A Douglas did not call Lincoln "radical for Niggers"  by some made up nonsense -  Lincoln continued his "radical" kick ass treatment of slavery by immediately (after he tried to stop the spread of slavery into the land just stolen) to   get rid of slavery in Washington DC.

More about those things below.  The point is, most people have no idea how radical Lincoln was -- in words and deeds -- because contrary to the narratives, Lincoln was not "reluctant" do destroy slavery whatsoever.  



He was, however, smart enough to end slavery in a way that worked.  Boombastic speeches against slavery they had -- but the number of people willing to DO anything to stop slavery was small.

Mostly, Lincoln knew he needed public sentiment to be on his side, and against slavery.  The problem was this -- to get enough people to DO something to stop the spread of slavery, and to keep the Declaration of Independence as a legal, effective document.

Most people don't know it, to this day, but the United States Supreme Court, in hands of slave power, officially ruled that the Declaration of Indpendence was void -- that all men are not created equal.

Blacks, ordered (yes  the Supreme Court ordered this) were to be seen as not human beings, not persons.   Blacks  were "so inferior"  that by order of the court  blacks could not be seen as human beings.

Our "history" books and 99% of the lectures on Dred Scott has watered down this vile monstrosity to "blacks are not citizens".  Bullshit, it was drastically worse -- and Lincoln screamed against this -- Dred Scott decision ordered that blacks are not persons.

And worse -- yes worse than ordering that blacks are not persons, the Dred Scott decision ordered (yes, ordered) that the federal government protect "it" -- it being slavery,  in the very same sentence as it ordered blacks to be seen as non human.

Thereby destroying as a legal principle our own Declaration of Independnce.

No child should graduate grade school, much less graduate high school, without knowing this vile and successful attack by slave power to kill to spread slavery by stealing land from Mexico, and by Dred Scott vile orders than blacks are not human beings.

But there are probably not five high school history teachers that know this, and teach it candidly. It would be hard to teach this, because the textbooks do not show that Mexican War was -- and virtually everyone alive knew it was - a war pushed by slave power to double the size of slavery.


Guess who explained all this?

A guy named Lincoln.   Our schools teach the Gettysburg address, often, but Lincoln did hours, upon hours, of "history" lectures in  hundreds of speeches before that, that explain the history of slavery, and how it was continually spread.

In his private writings, he was even more blunt -- slavery always spread by violence and deceit, it never could, and never would, spread without violence.   The Mexican War, the "Trouble in Kansas"  and the Civil War-- were all fought about slavery -- the desire of some to SPREAD slavery.

Tell me again, how Lincoln was not radical.



The most vexing problem Lincoln had was not the Confederate Army -- it was public sentiment.   Hundreds of times, Lincoln's enemies accused him and anyone like him -- successfully  -- of "being radical for Niggers"   and that Lincoln "would have your daughters sleep with Niggers".


According to Bloomington papers at the time -- 80% of the (white male) public in downstate Illinois actually believed Stephen A Douglas -- that Lincoln would have "your daughters"  sleep with "Niggers".

And Douglas said that word over and over "Nigger".  

Douglas wisely used that word -- for his public approval.  It worked.  Douglas won that election.

Here is something else you need to know --   Lincoln would not debate Douglas in 1860,  for President, likely because of  Douglas was very good at scaring whites to hate blacks. Douglas speaking style -- he made the public "see" in their minds their daughters "sleeping with Niggers"  as Douglas said. 

Lincoln only got 40%  

Lincoln would have lost 1860 election too, but by chance, three men ran against him.  Lincoln did not even get 40% of the vote.  Most people did NOT want "Niggers" to be free if it meant blacks had "perfect social freedom". 

In fact, the Southern soldiers even explained why they fought the Civil War.   Bet you didn't know this...

It was not only in the North were the public was afraid that ending slavery meant blacks would be free to walk down the street with white women..... in the South it was even worse, and made that way by the politicians screaming it repeatedly,  for years.

The hate of black males came from political leaders ---and that hate stayed long after the Civil War was over, handed down generation after generation. 

You should know that. You are never taught that, in any meaningful way, in US textbooks. 


Stephen A Douglas actually got elected to the Senate by screaming (yes screaming) and running from side to side of the stage in Lincoln Douglas debates (and elsewhere) shouting that Lincoln was "obsessed with equality for the Nigger".

Lincoln would not debate Douglas in the 1860 election for President, as he did for 1858 for Senate, because Douglas antics were very very effective (according to Illinois papers) in making the public absolutely certain Lincoln wanted their daughters to "sleep with Niggers".

Yet most "history teachers"  don't to seem even to know Lincoln didn't debate Douglas in 1860, much less what the reason for that change in Lincoln approach to running for office.


Guys like Foner,  they don't lie, and they are not even "wrong" exactly.   It's the narrative where they play games.

It's not a plot, it's human nature and good business.  Nothing wrong about that. 

Frederick Douglass, by some logic, had more to resent Lincoln for than others.   Why did not Lincoln, the first day in office, simply wave his magic wand and declare slavery illegal?

Why just issue the Emancipation Proclamation day one, effective immediately, and for all places, in perpetuity?

There are those that trash Lincoln for not doing that.

Yet any serious student -- much less teacher --  knows the answer to that.

Lincoln had no legal authority do such a thing,  and there was virtually no support for such a thing on Lincoln's first day in office.  


Southern leaders were ALREADY killing, ALREADY at war to spread slavery (yes, they were, see this)

Lincoln spoke, during this time, that slave owners deserve to be KICKED DEATH?

Radical enough for you?  Kicked to death?

Oh you didn't know that? 

Surprise surprise!


You can't understand Lincoln if you don't understand -- the South was already at war from 1856 on.  Their leaders even called it war -- a war to spread slavery. 

Did you know Southern leaders themselves called their violence a war to spread slavery?  Yeah, who knew, you need to know who Southern leaders were killing, and what they were boasting of, at the time.  Getting all the facts might be a good idea?

Like this Southern leader, 1856, boasting as loudly as anyone could about the joy of killing to spread slavery.


The last thing the people in the North wanted -- and Lincoln was no exception -- was a war against the South.  Why?  Because the South was led by violent men, boasting of violence. 

Most  whites were not willing to walk across the street for equality of the races, much less fight a war to end slavery in the South.

Lincoln got less than 40% of the vote, on his very very "moderate"  position of no spread of slavery. 

 Lincoln bent  over backwards to assure people in the NORTH -- (he was not allowed on the ballot in Southern states) that he would in no way cause any trouble with the South re slavery where it already was.


In fact, Lincoln and others who would dare to speak publicly in any powerful candid way for equal rights for blacks,  could expect a swift end to their political life.    At best you would lose.

At worse, you would be shot.

Others were shot, or beaten, or hated, for being for "Nigger rights". Like Elijah Lovejoy, in Alton Illinois, shot, and maybe burned to death, for publishing an anti- slavery newspaper.  Lincoln made Owen Lovejoy, brother to Elijah,   his Attorney General.

Owen Lovejoy actually was a prominent politician, himself, and gave a speech -- one memorable speech -- urging for total rights for the black race, social equality too -- not just "legal equality" under the law per the Declaration. 

That was too radical.  Owen could not get elected to dog catcher after that speech.  He had gone too far. But Lincoln made him Attorney General. 

We stupidly assume the "abolitionist"  of the day were for "social equality"  like blacks and whites marrying or dating. 

Those who were for such social equality, like Owen Lovejoy - found out that was lethal to your career. 

The "radical" abolitionist  were eager to get RID of the South, let them have slavery.   What problem is it to us if they enslave?  Lincoln did not go that route -- and for obvious reasons. That still left slavery, and let it spread.


As Lincoln said hundreds of times, slavery was now on a course to spread North and South -- as you will see below, he was right. That spread  he would not allow.

Yet Lincoln was bound -- by oath -- to obey Dred Scott until it could be reheard or reversed by Constitutional Amendment.  

Slavery was the law of the land - because of Dred Scott. Lincoln could not simply declare, not could congress, not could anyone at any level anywhere, declare slavery void.   Even state legislatures could not stop the spread of slavery, per Southern War Ultimatums, which demanded the spread of slavery into Kansas, which voted against slavery and came into USA as a free state, just before Lincoln took office. 

So Lincoln had to get the 13th Amendment passed, by the time the war ended.  If Lincoln did not get 13th Amendment passed, the Emancipation Proclamation would be of no effect -- it was a war time, "war powers'  thing.  It was issued as a military document, based on his power during war.

But until that moment -- slavery was, vile as it was-- legal because of Dred Scott. 



Lincoln was president of a country that, at the outset of the Civil War, most citizens would gladly have slavery not only continue and expand if need be, to keep the peace. 

 The "wise" move by the South was to keep slavery and not start the war.  But they had already started the war -- already promised endless efforts to spread slavery -- see their own documents and speeches at the time.   Their War Ultimatums were about the SPREAD of slavery into Kansas, even though Kansas citizens were against slavery.




The War Ultimatums were first issued in 1856, but then again, in 1861.   If you don't know about both those War Ultimatums,  which most people do not know, you should learn about both, and recalculate what you think you know about US Civil War.



But that's just the problem, as Lincoln pointed out.  By the "machinery" of Dred Scott and Kansas Act, there was no longer any middle ground.   Jefferson Davis himself, even after Kansas was a free state admitted to Union as a free state based on 95% votes against slavery "must accept"  slavery.

Davis and Southern War Ultimatums were that in 1856, but also that same basic demand, as War Ultimatum (not as a suggestion) in 1861.  Lincoln was exceedingly aware of those War Ultimatums, even if your teacher never mentioned them.   It's not Lincoln's fault your history teacher did not know.




So it  helps If you know what the hell was happening from 1847 on, and most teachers don't know, or teach it, in a candid way   Read further, it might help, or not.

Lincoln was kicking slavery in the ass in 1847,  as much as he possibly could.  And he was hated for it.   Yet seems most  history teachers can not tell you the particulars of what Lincoln did in any clear way, and how radical Lincoln was.  And how Lincoln was hated for it.




Lincoln was skirting the "edge" of what was possible,  because public sentiment was very much against  bothering slavery at all.   People in the North  -- Illinois as much as any state -- did not want blacks to even come in their state.

It was against the law-- punishable by whipping -- for a black to move into Illinois when Lincoln was running for Senate, and when he ran for President.

Did you know that? Did you know blacks could not move into Illinois? 


Because Lincoln gave over 2000 speeches, over 2 million words,  you can -- if that's your thing -- make him appear extreme or timid,  reluctant to foaming at the mouth eager to end slavery, even by violence.

Yet Lincoln said amazing things, radical as hell.

Slave owners deserve to be kicked to death, he said.  Did you know that?   Another time he spoke of hanging those who would spread slavery.  

 Pretty radical, if you only quote those.    Most people would know -- well, Lincoln said other things too, so you can't just go by isolated quote, you need context. 




The Dred Scott decision specifically and emphatically ruled the Declaration of Independence did NOT apply to black people because they were "so inferior"  that they were not human beings (not persons) but property.

It would help if you knew that from 7th grade on, because this was the central issue -- and Jeff Davis admitted as much, citing in his own writings that blacks were not persons because of Dred Scott decision.

 Lincoln was called radical just for saying blacks were equal to all rights under the  Declaration of Independence.  Worse, Lincoln was called a "Traitor" for saying blacks should be and always were human beings for purposes of the Constitution --- until Dred Scott decision said otherwise. 

Once the Dred Scott decision ordered (yes ordered) the federal government to see blacks NOT as human beings, (yes, they ordered that exact thing) that changed everything, per Jeff Davis and Abraham Lincoln.

Were they wrong?  Most history teachers don't even tell their students in candid terms (because they don't know) that Dred Scott decision ordered (yes ordered) blacks were not to be seen as human beings. Lincoln sure knew it, and said so.  

Jeff Davis sure knew it, and said so, and operated on the basis.



Over 1000 times, one way or another, with great specificity at times, in speeches that lasted hours. Lincoln explained the history of slavery since the Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence,  and how Dred Scott changed all that.

You might get a high school teacher to mention that, but unless the student understand how radical Dred Scott was -- blacks are not human beings by the order of the court --  those generations of students can not understand how Lincoln was right.

Remember, Jeff Davis said the same thing -- only he was for (he probably helped to write)  the Dred Scott decision.  Jeff Davis always referred to the Dred Scott decision to justify the killings in Kansas and beyond.

Lincoln was jeered by some  in the North, even in the Lincoln Douglas debates, for saying blacks SHOULD be considered human beings, not property.

The 13th Amendment did undo Dred Scott decision. 

Not weeks later, LIncoln got a bullet to the brain for his efforts to make this the official law of the land, which it was at one time, but which Dred Scott decision had emphatically declared, by order, of no effect.


Lincoln actions, as you will see, were radical as anyone's  actions -- and better, because  his were EFFECTIVE.   His genius was to do things that WORKED, to set slavery up where he and public sentiment could destroy it.

Lincoln needed public sentiment to do anything at all, and in 1858, and 1860,  the big two elections in Lincoln's life -- most people voted AGAINST Lincoln. Did you know that?


Douglas defeated Lincoln -- because, as a Bloomington paper said at the time, the public (white males) believed Stephen A Douglas repeated yelling -- and the anti -Lincoln  newspapers which said much the same thing as Douglas -- that Lincoln would have the races mix, or as Douglas put it "your daughter will sleep with _____"

If LIncoln had the public sentiment to destroy slavery, and the legal ability, he would have. We know that for sure, because when he GOT the legal authority from the war, and when public sentiment changed drastically from 1860 to 1864, and reelected Lincoln who now, by 1864, was openly for the 13th Amendment and he was kicking the living shit out of the Confederacy.

So now, not before, it was possible to pass the 13 Amendment.

And now, not before, Lincoln had the power to demand the South stop their killing to spread slavery.




Yes, to do destroy slavery, Lincoln had to avoid war, if possible.  No one knows what the hell will happen in war.  The pro-slavery killers, as you will see-- almost did win.  And they almost spread slavery exactly as they promised.


LIncoln was not stupid or rash.  He explained it repeatedly -- talking about slavery being like snakes in bed with his children,.  He could not just wack away at the bed with an ax -- he would kill his own children.  He had to kill slavery carefully -- and he did.

If our country were new, we could get rid of slavery in a straightforward way, chop the heads off the snake with rake. 

Those snakes were now in bed-- in the states -- and nested there, and growing.   Lincoln explained it well, he could not just go hacking away at the snakes now, it would kill his children,

No hacking away stupidly, like some macho man, it would not work, and slavery would spread. 


If war  was what the South wanted (they were already killing and calling it war since 1856), then Lincoln wanted the South to start it, and the war only to be about Union, in the public's mind. 

Lincoln well knew the public would not fight to end slavery.

And Lincoln knew that if Union ended, the South not only keeps slavery but spreads slavery as their war ultimatums and history showed they would do. 

  If LIncoln had been stupid, he could have got some soldiers to invade the South early on, get those men killed, lose the war, and slavery spreads. So he did not do that.  He promised, wisely, to leave slavery alone,  and if the SOUTH wanted war, that was their decision. 

The South was ALREADY at war -- already killing, and had been killing for years, in Kansas.  Lincoln was very well aware of that, even if you are stupid about it, he was not.

See this... the ongoing war by Southern men to spread slavery.

  The public would not support a war of aggression to end slavery, period.   The public did not even want to fight back in Kansas, let the South do what they could by their own force,  the people in the North - or enough to matter- - did not want to fight anyone.

So Lincoln proceeded wisely, with the public's help,  speaking about Union, while setting up slavery to be destroyed.

Lincoln wanted slavery destroyed, like he said he wanted those snakes in bed with his children destroyed.  But Lincoln had to destroy those snakes wisely, not stupidly.

 Lincoln did exactly that, got public sentiment, defeated the South militarily, defeated those who wanted to end the war and allow slavery to spread. 

Lincoln passed the 13th Amendment, got the South to surrender, then got that bullet to the brain he had avoided all along, until the end.

Try to understand -- and the first step-- get all the facts.

Not some cherry picked quote from hustlers and bullshitters. 



Lincoln was "ambivalent"  "reluctant" or he "didn't even care" about slavery.

Lincoln was "no more or less racists than anyone else"  and he was "content to let slavery continue forever" to save the Union.

There is an endless supply of these kinds of narratives about Lincoln -- you could name 10 of them, I bet.  For the last 50 years, it was politically incorrect to praise Lincoln unless you said he "evolved over time"   and "was reluctant for equality".

If you don't know what the hell Lincoln did -- for years-- before he even ran for Senate any fast talking fool, or "scholar" can make you believe anything at all.

But when you know how radical Lincoln was, those fools, those "scholars"  are not so persuasive.

When Frederick Douglass said Lincoln was "radical, swift, zealous and determined" to end slavery -- do you suppose he gave a shit what bullshitters said 150 years later, who were not there, and did not seem to have a clue what the hell was going on. 

Lincoln was more radical than anyone, because he got it done, and he had a history of radical efforts-- some successful. His greatest success was to speak wisely -- not rashely.

Lincoln knew that most whites

1) did not give a shit about slaves in the South -- 

2) did not want black men walking down the street by their wives.

3)  hated -- violently hated -- the thought of black men sleeping with their daughters.

This is exactly why Stephen A Douglas, in almost every speech he made in 1858, went overboard about Lincoln and "nigger rights"  and told the crowds Lincoln wanted their daughters to "sleep with Niggers".

Lincoln had to deal with that.   If you don't know how he dealt with that, learn first.  Get the facts first,  and quit falling for bullshit by fast talking bullshitters. 


To say Lincoln was ambivalent about slavery is like saying your cancer doctor is fine with your brain tumor, because he chooses (wisely) not to cut it into your brain with his pocket knife,  the first time you come into his office.

Maybe your surgeon does not have the legal right -- as Lincoln had no legal right -- to end slavery by some magic wand in 1846.  

But Lincoln DID radically stand up to President Polk, and was against the Mexican War, because the Mexican War, as Lincoln and many others knew (even if you do not) was a successful effort by Slave power to double the size of slavery.

LINCOLN  tried to stop it.

Then, when slave power got their war, and doubled the size of slavery against Lincoln's effort - do you know that Lincoln did?

For those who say Lincoln did not care, I have yet met ANYONE who has a clue -- in fact, they don't even know Lincoln tried to prevent and stop the Mexican war because it was an attempt to spread slavery.

But like dumb asses everwhere, they knew more than Lincoln,  they knew more that Lincoln's enemies who hated for this, and they knew more even Southern leaders, like Henry Clay, who AGREED with Lincoln that the Mexican War was a war to spread slavery.

So of course this profoundly wise person -- who didn't even know this much -- could not tell you, for his life, what Lincoln did next.

Lincoln continued to try to stop slavery anyway. Lincoln, 40 times -- remember this -- 40 times. Not 39, not 38, not 37, ect,  he tried 40 times to then stop the spread of slavery into that land we just stole from Mexico.

Did I mention 40 times?

Who does that?  Tell me, who does that so far, and "does not care" about slavery.

And Lincoln was not done.   You tell me, what did Lincoln do after he tried 40 times to stop slavery in the land just stolen from Mexico?

Lincoln then tried - repeatedly -- to end slavery in the District of Columbia. Over and over there, too.  He tried to get a "consensus" and if needed pay the slave owners for their slaves, or any thing. Delay the date for emancipation, just have the children born after a certain date, free. 

And he was hated for it, and of course slave power would have none of it.

Lincoln did that. The Lincoln that "did not care"  and was "ambivalent" about slavery spent years trying to end slavery as much as he could, where he could.

It helps if you knew that,.



Kick slave owners to death.... radical enough for you?

Lincoln's pattern said Douglas was radical, extreme.  .  

Lincoln was "obsessed"  said Douglas, for "Nigger equality"  

Lincoln was reluctant to say things that Douglas and the newspapers would use against him, trash him as "Negro Worshipper"  and "traitor"  to his country for being against the Mexican War. Douglas had a list of radical things Lincoln said and did, Lincoln tried to speak very carefully.

Douglas ACCUSED Lincoln, as if it's a crime (and it nearly was) of being for equal rights for blacks after the Dred Scott decision. 

Lincoln repeats "over and over"  that blacks are human beings and persons who have rights under our constitution because of the Declaration of Independence!

Douglas was accusing -- in a blameful hateful matter- - that Lincoln was going "contrary to the United States Supreme Court"  who ruled that blacks are not persons, and that blacks do not qualify for rights under our Constitution

Douglas called Lincoln a "traitor"  -- a "radical"   a "revolutionary"  who was obsessed with "Nigger rights".



What if your brain surgeon -- the one that could not operate that first day because it was illegal for him to do so, insisted he wanted to cut that day anyway, legal or not?  

 Then further imagine, what if you promised to shoot him if he tried?

In a very real way, it was illegal for Lincoln, or anyone, any government, to cut slavery out by force,  Besides, virtually no one wanted to, there were not any abolitionist (other than arguably John Brown) that saw violence an answer to slavery.

Even Frederick Douglass himself did not want a war to invade the South and stop slavery that way -- his solution up to the Civil War was to let the South go.   Kick them out of the US, do not have anything to do with those who enslave and torture.

 What if later,  Lincoln did manage to get the legal right to  operate on your brain, did in fact operate successfully and get the cancer out, would you be so stupid as to say "Oh he was ambiliant, he didn't really care, he was find with my cancer ".

That's kinda how stupid it is to claim Lincoln didn't really care about slavery.



Yes, yes, yes. You can sound exactly as correct for any position  you want to take on Lincoln,  if you just go by a few quotes -- especially when you don't know or care about context, or the entire speech, and his actions.

This is essentially what Foner and others do, and do well.

They lay out quotes, one after another.  No, not the quotes that slave owners should be kicked to death, they make sure they don't tell you that and others like it.
Because Lincoln had to DEFEND his radical past, and assure the public he did not want their daughters to "sleep with Niggers"  Lincoln had to do somersaults in every debate,  pretty much for the whole debate.

Those quotes are perfect to "prove" something that was not true --that Lincoln was not really against slavery.    Get all his quotes, and his actions.

He was radical as  hell, when and where it mattered.   He was kicking slavery in the ass as hard as he could, as fast as he could, and as effectively as he could, until he killed slavery completely.

Yes, at times, he wisely spoke carefully, even as he kicked slavery to death.  His words were a weapon, too.

South used words as weapons, over and over and over.

Why should Lincoln not? 



Why not go by judge those quotes?   

Like slave owners should be kicked to death.

Lincoln Lincoln will hang leaders in the South like they hung John Brown, if they try to spread slavery more.

Because we know there are more quotes than those where Lincoln lost his temper.  We know that context matters.So no one goes around and claims Lincoln was eager to end slavery by force, because OF COURSE Lincoln did not want war to end slavery.

Why didn't Lincoln want a war to end slavery?  Because you can lose a war.

LIncoln said it over and over.  He was trying to get public sentiment to end slavery by agreement, in time if needed, paid compensation if needed, any way but war.


You probably never  heard Lincoln said slave owners deserve to be kicked to death - because no one told you.  See, Lincoln said slave owners deserved nothing but contempt, kicking, and death. And in a famous speech,  to boot. 

He also said, in one outburst, that we should hang those folks who were pushing slavery into the rest of the country.

Hang them?     They deserve kicking and death?

He also said we must end slavery or slavery will destroy the United States.  One will survive, the United States or slavery.   To keep one is to destroy the other.

Lincoln also said -- powerfully and repeatedly- - that any black person is equal to him equal to Judge Douglas, and equal to ANY WHITE MAN, in their rights to life, to liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Lincoln was shot in the head, in fact, after a speech where he said blacks should have voting rights -- certain blacks,  "educated" blacks"  should be able to vote.

That was the last speech Lincoln ever made, among the last words he ever spoke, the last words he uttered on earth.

His assassin, John Booth, heard that speech in person, and was so enraged, he changed his plot from kidnap to kill.   The "right to vote for Niggers"  was something that men like Douglas, and many others, used to inflame and enrage the public, North and South.

Yet when men like Foner, McPherson, Foote, and hundreds of others tell us about Lincoln, they often derisively tell  us that Lincoln only wanted voting right for "educated" blacks. 

These "scholars"  forget to tell us how radical that was, and how it got Lincoln a bullet in the head.

Again and again, hundreds of times, Lincoln spoke very carefully NOT to enrage, but go lead, to sound and be reasonable, not to frighten the whites with images of black men sleeping with their daughters, voting in elections, walking down the streets with their wives, going to schools with their children.

This speech, the one about voting rights for blacks, Lincoln could not know a man listening to him with a gun in his pocket, would soon put a bullet in his brain precisely because Lincoln was "radical" for "Nigger rights".

Lincoln thought he sounded reasonable -- and that day it cost him his life.

Did Foner, McPherson, Foner, and 1000 other historians ever mention this?  

Not that I know.  You have a lot to learn to get to that point, because you need to know what the hell was going on, and why so many whites, North and South, were so afraid of "Niggers sleeping with your daughter".

A phrase Stephen A Douglas used again, and again.  And Douglas used those phrases, because they worked.



Lincoln did speak of Union,  repeatedly.  He spoke much more often, and at far greater length and with much more passion, about equality under the law, and the Declaration of Independence -- which the United States Supreme Court had ruled did not apply to "inferior beings"  and they classified blacks as inferior beings. 

Did you know that the United States Supreme Court ruled that all men are NOT created equal, in that blacks can not be considered human beings - that is, not persons?

I bet you were never told that.  Yet it's there right in the Dred Scott decision itself.   Southern leaders -- and Stephen A Douglas, brought this up again, and again, and again.

After the Dred Scott court ruled that blacks are not persons -- and actually ordered (yes ordered) the government to see blacks not as people, but as property,  Lincoln had no legal basis -- and had no public support -- to stop slavery by any legal means, unless he could undo the Dred Scott decision.  

As President, as Lincoln said, he was bound to obey the United States Supreme Court, and he would do so. He would use only legal means, and would abide only in legal means, to end slavery.  Until he could pass the 13th Amendment, any measures he took for freeing slaves was a temporary measure, made necessary by the war itself -- since the South was using their slaves to help with their war effort, just as he could lawfully stop the production of arms by the rebels in the South, so too he could lawfully prohibit the use of slaves.

But that measure was a "war measure"  and would end when the South complied with the law.  That is why Lincoln moved heaven and earth to get the 13th Amendment ratified in Congress, which he did, just before his death.  

Then Lincoln's death created such an outpouring of support for him, his death helped greatly get the Amendment ratified in enough states, that it was accepted as valid.  Many folks do  not know there is a two step process-- it had to be ratified by Congress - then accepted by enough states.

Lincoln, alive, barely got it throught Congress, by actually bribing the hold outs.

Lincoln dead, got it throught the states, by an outpouring of respect for him.


When Lincoln again and again and again spoke of Union, he did so by saying, again and again, that slavery would die, or the Union would die.  

 And he did NOT expect the Union to die.

Slavery had to go, or the Union had to go.  Because of Dred Scott, and Kansas Act, there was no other way for it to end. The South was using Kansas Act and Dred Scott to justify the killings and violence to spread slavery. 

There was no wau to stop the South from claiming, as they did, justification for slavery, and justification for killing to spread slavery.   

Most people in the North did NOT want to fight the South at all, much less fight them to free "Niggers" so "Niggers" men could walk free in the North and possibly sleep with "daughters".   

In fact no politician -- zero- - none -- every got up and said "Yes, I am for blacks marrying whites, I am for these black men to walk down any street with any woman of any color".

Not even Frederick Douglas said things like that, it would be inciting a riot, if not welcoming a bullet to your brain.



Lincoln spoke very radically for where he was, and when he was --  no one spoke more radically, in an effective way.

It would do no earthly good for Lincoln to speak more radically than he did (and he was at times too radical when you learn all his speeches), and be shot earlier.
Frederick Douglass knew all that, and knew Lincoln had to say things carefully. But he also knew Lincoln was "swift, radical, zealous and determined" to end slavery.

Ironically Southern leaders ALSO knew Lincoln was radical. They knew his full history, his full speeches, as you will see. 

Unless you know of  all his speeches and actions, you can't  understand that Lincoln's enemies were right -- he was radical. And he would, if he could, end slavery, that is, if he had the public support, and the legal ability

As soon as he got the public support, as soon as he got the legal ability, he used it.  He used it daringly, at great risk to everything, when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862. 

  The most radical proclamation in US history, because as a WAR MEASURE (remember, it was a war measure, and only applied during the war, in the areas of rebellion) it freed all blacks in areas of rebellion, which was the only place Lincoln could do so. He could do that as a war measure, he had no right to do it on one foot of soil that was not in rebellion.

But today hundreds of people trash Lincoln saying he did not free then all the slaves, everywhere, by simple order.  He could not, the United States Supreme Court had more that upheld slavery, the United States Supreme Court ordered, yes ordered -- the federal government to protect slavery.

And the US Congress would not outlaw slavery,  the border states would have just joined the Confederacy, and the war would be over, slavery would spread.  The Emancipation was dangerous, Lincoln had to avoid anything that would push several major states from joining the Confederacy. 

To satisfy people that would hate him 100 years later, and do something stupid like push five more states into the Confederacy, by simply saying all slaves are free everywhere forever,  would be the dumbest possible mistake he could make, so he did not make that mistake. 

He could not free one slave, legally and forever, by just saying the words.  He had to get that Constitutional Amendment first.  His temporary war measure of the Emancipation Proclamation would end the moment the war ended.  If Southern leaders were smart,  they would stop killing to spread slavery,  end the war, and keep slavery.

Instead, the South fought on. They refused to end the fighting, and they were killing in Kansas from 1854 then.  No power on earth could stop those killings - and no Southern leader was about to suddenly say "Okay, we should stop this now".

Lincoln did not act illegally, because that was stupid, and he knew it was stupid.

 He did not act contrary to public sentiment, because that was stupid and he knew it was stupid.

 He did as much as he could, as soon as he could, but did no more.

And it worked.


Not even the most radical abolitionist speakers would ever say they wanted "mixing of the races".  In fact, as Lincoln pointed out several times, the mixing of the races was already happening, in the South, on slave plantations.

And indeed it was. Thousands of mixed race slaves existed, in fact, ironically, Robert E Lee himself might have owned the most racially mixed slaves in US history, and the greatest number of white looking slaves.  Click here for Lee's slave ledger information. 



Frederick Douglass described Lincoln as "swift, zealous, radical and determined"  to end slavery.   Was Douglass stupid?

No, Douglass was brilliant.  The same people who hated Lincoln, hated Frederick Douglass.

Frederick Douglass was there.

Douglass knew what Lincoln was up against -- most whites, even in Illinois, were not only against equality of the races, he knew whites were constantly told that "Nigger equality"  would mean "Nigger equality"   meant black men would take "our women".

When Stephen A Douglas -- repeatedly -- yelled such things to the crowd.  In Charleston Illinois, reported wrote that Douglas  and ran from side to side of the stage yelling that Lincoln wants black men to sleep with "your daughter" 

Stephen A Douglas knew what he was doing.  He was winning.

Douglas knew the sentiment of the people, and how to pump up the hate and fear of Lincoln by pumping up the hate and fear of black males walking with your wife, sleeping with your daughter.

For that time and place, these were extraordinary and crude -- in fact, they were the stuff that could get Lincoln attacked physically by some whites.

So Frederick Douglass knew all that,  he knew why Lincoln had to be very careful what he said, he knew that most whites were terrified --or even hateful -- toward the idea that freed blacks would be able to walk down the street, move into the North, go to schools, or have sex with white women.

Frederick Douglass knew what you do not - the hatred of black men taking white women was deep, abiding, and powerful. Politicians North and South used it to gain power. No abolitionist -- none - openly supported the rights for blacks to "be with"  white women.  Those few that might have believed it, or even married mulatto women,  better be very careful how they said it -- some where killed for such "extreme" stands on race, even in Illinois.

Lincoln was very careful how he dealt with this issue  -- and as Lincoln was careful about that, Lincoln kicked the living shit out of slavery.


Lincoln also compared slavery to a spreading cancer, as slavery was spreading.  We can not cut it out, or the patient may bleed to death, he said.  But the cancer must die, or the patient (the United States) will die.


Again he compared slavery to a group of snakes in bed with children.  He said he had to be very careful how to destroy those snakes -- but they must be destroyed.  If he just started attacking the snakes with a rake, his children would be hurt.

He had to get rid of the snakes very carefully. 

Radical enough yet?

The South, and Stephen A Douglas, said that talk was a "Declaration of War"  against slavery?    

Did you know  his friends begged him to walk that strong  word game back?  Lincoln  refused. 

Then Lincoln  said that over and over.... in different ways.

We can not be half slave and half free.  We will be all one thing, or all the other.  Slavery was a cancer, he said. It was snakes.  It will be destroyed, or it will destroy the host.  One or the other. 

Lincoln? Yes.


So it depends, sadly, on word games.     As you will see, Lincoln DID play word games, and necessarily so.  As Lincoln played these "word games"  however, he was always lining up slavery so he could kick it, until it died.  


You would never know it from US text books -- nor from the likes of Foner or James McPherson -- but Lincoln was hated by many, in Illinois too,  for  kicking slavery in the ass1847 on.

Lincoln tried to stop the Mexican War, because it was (and most people knew it) an American invasion of Mexico to start a war, so we could take their land cheap.   Even Southern leaders said so, like Henry Clay, US Senator and national leader from the South -- and a hero to Abe Lincoln.

See more about what Lincoln did to stop slavery long before he ran for President.  And remember, he was hated by many for it. Stephen Douglas used those actions and words by Lincoln in the elections he ran against Lincoln.

Douglas explained Lincoln's past actions to stop slavery -- even if your "history teacher"  did not. Douglas even carried a leather satchel with Lincoln speeches in it, to "prove" how radical Lincoln was for the "Nigger".

And Douglas said "Nigger" in the debates regularly --  you are not even told that.  The way he said those kinds of words as as vile and dramatic as Douglas --who was quite the dramatic actor -- could make them.

Someone should have told you what Lincoln was up against.

Not my fault they didn't tell you. 



Yes there were others who just wanted to "let the South GO"   Many of the extreme abolitionist speakers desperately wanted to just let the South go,  get rid of them, and we will be better off.

But that ignored the SPREAD of slavery and the War ultimatums by Southern leaders.  The South actually was already at war, and boasting of it, to spread slavery into all of the West.

Also, Kansas, already a free state by the time Lincoln was president, was being invaded, and had been invaded, for years.  Southern War Ultimatums in Southern papers were very clear, very specific.   Kansas MUST accept and respect slavery.

You do not know this -- it's not taught clearly in our schools -- but Lincoln was focused on this like a laser.   Southern leaders were already at war, and already boasting about, long before he even ran for Senate, much less President.

And Lincoln spoke of this repeatedly .. the only real difference between us, he wrote to the Vice President of the Confederacy, is you think slavery is good, and should be spread.  We think slavery is bad, and should not spread.

But SPREAD of slavery is exactly and emphatically what the South demanded -- and were killing to attain.

The spread of slavery -- the spread of it -  was absolutely required for the white race to survive.  It will "exterminate"  us if we are prevented from spreading slavery.   This was a very clear, repeated, and official position of Southern leaders, and was for years. 

Just stopping the SPREAD of slavery -- very specific -- it will "burn us to death slowly". 

Not just burned to death, but to deny Southern "rights" to spread slavery, Lincoln and anyone like him was trashing the "Honor" of the South. 


Yes, historians often do get around to mentioning a few things Lincoln did.   But typically they do not show Lincoln as trying to end slavery -- in radical ways -- long before he even ran for Senate, much less ran for President.  Yet Lincoln did do things to end slavery, as you will see, and was hated for it.

   For the rest of life, there were people in IL, including newspapers, that hated Lincoln and accused him of Treason -- including Stephen A Douglas in one speech,  for what Lincoln did to try to end slavery by being against the Mexican War.

Lincoln was not only against the Mexican War -- which was a war to double the size of slavery by taking Mexican land -- but when Lincoln could not prevent the war, Lincoln then tried 40 times -- 40 times!-- to get Congress to outlaw slavery in the land we  just took from Mexico in the Mexican War.

And Lincoln was not done, yet.  He would never get done, of course, until he won the Civil War and passed the 13th Amendment.  But there was a lot of work to do, to get to that part, and Lincoln did the prep work, then kicked slavery to death.

And you would know that, if you knew his ACTIONS and full words. 




We will mention this again - Bloomington papers, at the time, said that from Bloomington on South, 80% of the voters believed Lincoln wanted their daughters to sleep with black men.

So this was commonly known about Lincoln by anyone who read Douglas's newspapers (Douglas friends ran a number of newspapers in Illinois) and of course, by anyone who listened to Douglas. Lincoln = our daughters being around black men.

The hate and fear of black males even played a central role in the Civil War itself,  when early Southern prisoners said they fought because Yankees "wanted our daughters to sleep with Niggers".

This same kind of hate and fear mongering that Douglas did in the North,  Southern leaders did, too.

 Yet of all the "historians" I have read, only two even mentions Douglas "Nigger rants"  and noticed that they were important. (Allen Guelzo and Michael Burlingame).  


Given that we are told, and have been for 50 years now, by Pulitzer Prize winning historians,  various versions of Lincoln as "reluctant"  to end slavery or that "he didn't really care about slavery"  till later in the Civil War -- it's no wonder people do not know the facts.

What Lincoln did to end slavery, before he even ran for Senate?  A stunning number of history teachers simply don't know, and therefore can't teach it.  



Stephen A Douglas not only told the crowds -- in the Lincoln Douglas debate and at his other speeches --that Lincoln wanted their daughters to "sleep" with blacks,  he also told the crowd --falsely -- that he saw Lincoln with "his friend" Frederick Douglas,  and they were together with a white woman in a carriage.

You didn't know that, did you? 

This was a theme -- a central theme,  and the most important theme Douglas used. He did not do so by accident.

He did not do this by chance, or by oddity.

He did it because it worked. 

Douglas (Stephen A) made damn sure the public saw, and thought, in terms he decided -- in their minds he did what no one else did in politics at that time -- he actually made it vivid, clear and repeated it.  White women  will be  black men,  even if that meant white women were having sex with black men.

Yet this is not mentioned by Foner as even a side issue, much less a loud, repeated, and dramatic issue, and Douglas made it dramatic. He shouted it -- he did not shout other things.

He ran side to side- - he did not run side to side about other things.

He started the "rant"  at times before he even got on stage. 

And Douglas used this exact hate speech away from Lincoln, in his many speeches that year. 

Stephen A Douglas knew that was political gold -- it worked. 

After Douglas went into these rants, Lincoln had to speak why blacks and whites should be equal under the law.   Lincoln had to assure the crowd that just because Lincoln was for equal rights for blacks, did not mean he wanted their daughters to "sleep with Niggers". 

 When you know the whole story, and Lincoln's full speeches, it's astonishing how powerful Lincoln was, for example, when  he said slave owners deserve to be kicked to death.

See- - getting the whole story does matter.  And it's a damn shame our text books, nor our "historians"  see fit to tell the whole story. 



Playing word games is a fine past time in most Lincoln biographies, which is legitimate and necessary.  But get all the quotes, and his actions, in context.

It's hard not to agree with Lincoln's enemies, North and South.  Lincoln was "radical and zealous" to end slavery -- but above all smart about it.

There was no public support, even in the North, to bother slavery where it was. In fact, most people in Illinois did not want blacks even near their state, and it was a law-- punishable by torture -- for a free black to move into Illinois. 

For every week a free black stayed in Illinois, if they were not born there,  could cause another set of whippings.   Worse, if possible, is that politicians grew successful -- like Stephen A Douglas, preaching, even screaming,  the evils of blacks running free in Illinois.

No one ever told you that, did they?  The popular politicians actually got power, got popular, got wealth, as Stephen A Douglas learned how to to --  and did it again and again to Lincoln's face: to scream that Lincoln would "have your daughters sleep with and marry Niggers".


In many ways, especially South of Chicago, Illinois was much like Kentucky, or even further South.   As you will see Bloomington papers in 1858 reported that 80% of voters (white males)  Bloomington and South actually thought Lincoln wanted their daughters to sleep with "Niggers".

Why?  Because they were told that over, and over, and over.  In various ways, by various publications and speakers, of which Douglas is the one best known, obviously.  But Douglas was not the only one. 

Yet still, knowing all this,  Lincoln said slave owners deserve to be "kicked to death" in one of his Peoria speeches.   Kicked to death.

Did I mention "Kicked to death"?

Now, you'd think Foner or McPherson or Bruce Catton, or any of 100 others would have noticed that speech in Peoria.  Well of course they read the speech.  

They just didn't see to include that quote, or other amazing quotes when you learn the context, in their narrative.




Lincoln had to be careful -- most people in Illinois, as you will see, did not want black men to even set foot in Illinois.   No, they did not want slavery either, but they sure as hell did not want blacks to sleep with their daughters, walk down the street behind their wives, or go to school with their children.

It was a law-- free blacks could not come in the state, nor slaves.  In fact, the punishment was whipping, just for free blacks to come into the state!  If they stayed a week, that was another crime, on top of coming in at all.


Quincy newspapers called for the DEATH of Frederick Douglas  when Douglas committed the "capital crime" of speaking against slavery in Kansas.     See for yourself.

Lincoln had to go to Quincy to speak and debate there.

Lincoln, of course, knew many people in all these communities, he knew the history, and which newspapers hated him, which called him "obsessed with Nigger rights"  or a "black Republican"  and which covered him honestly. 


Lincoln used every manner of speech -- mostly humor, even when accused of wanting your daughters to sleep with "Niggers".

Lincoln could and did necessarily respond with humor.  Again and again Lincoln "disarmed" the public who saw him, and might otherwise attack him.  

Before Lincoln was famous for his politics, he was famous around central Illinois for his humor.  Lincoln drew crowds all over central Illinois for  his ability to mimic-- to sound like, to walk like, to talk like, others in the community.  And of course for his stories.

We don't know that today, but people knew that then. Lincoln kicked into the humor mode, as best as he could, when appropriate, even in the Lincoln Douglas debates-- even when Douglas was screaming at the crowd that Lincoln wanted their daughters to "sleep with Niggers".

By the way -- Douglas went far overboard, even for the day, when he shouted such things about Lincoln to his face.  And Douglas did so wisely -- it made a profound impression.  

Most people -- especially those who saw the debates downstate, were impacted by Douglas rants that your daughter will sleep with them, your wife will have to walk down the street with them, and your kids will have to go to school with them.

Douglas won that contest -- and would have won again for President if 3 men did not divide the anti-Lincoln vote.  Three men ran against Lincoln -- Douglas would have won, and for the same reason.  Lincoln did not quite get 40% of the vote. Anti-Lincoln votes were 60%.

Remember that.  Hating blacks, fear and hate mongering not only worked to get Douglas elected and would have again, fear and hate mongering led directly to the US Civil War. 



In fact, debate crowds usually favored Douglas and could yell  "DOWN WITH NIGGERS".

Douglas had his own men -- men that owed their jobs to him -- at every debate, to cheer  him.  We can't know if those were the people who  yelled "Down With Niggers" when Douglas reached the point of scaring white men about their daughters "sleeping" with black.   But we know some folks yelled that during Douglas speeches.

I can't help it that no one told you -- if Foner or McPherson did their job, or if your text book did their job, they would show you the speeches where Douglas screamed  "Mr Lincoln wants your daughters to sleep with Niggers".  and so on.

Bet your text book never showed that to you?  Yet it was the emotional center of not just the debates -- it was why Douglas won, and it was why so few got elected that dared to be "too abolitionist"

Others, during Lincoln's political life in Illinois, were killed for being too abolitionist, never mind not getting elected.

In fact, no one -- not even the "radical abolitionist" is the east,  ever said that blacks should sleep with your daughters.  Almost every "radical abolitionist" was very adept at side stepping such issues --and were much like Lincoln, they were for stopping the spread of slavery any further and ending slavery by public support.

Lincoln's basic position was always that -- we must end slavery with public support,  we must get public sentiment first.

There was no public sentiment in the entire USA to have a war to end slavery in the South.  The most radical folks, in fact, wanted to let the South go,  they could spread slavery all they wanted, just keep it out of the North and out of Kansas.

LIncoln knew that would not work -- Southern leaders were already killing to spread slavery,  and now, with Dred Scott and Kansas Act, slavery would be all over the US, or slavery was going to end.

We will be all one thing, or all the other, Lincoln said.  And he was right.


Bloomington papers said that from central Illinois down, 80% of the white males believed Lincoln wanted their daughters to sleep with "Niggers" and voted accordingly.

Yet Lincoln told crowds there slave owners deserve to be kicked to death.

Eric Foner is a "fine" historian, in the sense no one does footnotes with such cleverness.   And if you can't handle original sources, you can learn much from him. It takes far less time to read the first chapter of an Eric Foner book, than it does to read 100 newspaper editors calling Lincoln a "black republican"   "Negro Worshipper"  who was going to destroy the white race.

A valid narrative of Lincoln though?   Can you learn  a valid narrative of Lincoln or the Civil War from Foner?

Maybe not. 

Did Foner cover all the bases?  Did he give his readers the basic facts -- like Lincoln's actions, radical as hell actions, such as standing up to President Polk, and in the clever way Lincoln had, calling Polk a liar about Mexican War.  The Mexican War, it would be helpful to Foner's readers if they knew this,  was a war to spread slavery, to double the size of slavery by stealing half the land Mexico owned.

The United States attacked Mexico-- and everyone knew it, but few cared.  Lincoln did care, and Lincoln actually asked publically for Polk to prove where this "Spot "  was -- the spot where Mexico attacked the US.

Lincoln knew the US was not attacked, because of the clever double talk given to support the fraud.  And he, with many others, knew what slave power had done from the start of the country -- manufacture excuses to spread slavery.

By standing up to Polk,  though Lincoln used humor to do it, was still a golden opportunity for politicians in Illinois to trash him.  So they did.

 Lincoln was called, then and later, as a traitor to the United States in time of war!

  Even Henry Clay, the great Kentucky Senator who pushed through the Compromise of 1850, said the Mexican War was a US effort -- successful -- to steal land to double the size of slavery.  So Lincoln was not alone.  I can't help it that we simply don't teach that the Mexican War was a war pushed by slave power, in order to double the size of slavery, but it was.

And it took balls to stand up to Polk, as Lincoln did, and try to stop it.  

Lincoln did not stop there -- because 40 times, 40 times, Lincoln then tried to get Congress to stop slavery from going into the land the US just stole.   Yes, we did steal it, we kept killing them until they "agreed" to "sell" the land.

It was no different than a 7-11 armed robbery.  

Foner never told you that, and "forgot" to mention how Lincoln paid for that honesty, even though LIncoln was careful how he confronted the President.  

For all the facts Foner may bring to the table, he keeps some facts covered, or vague,  omits others, stresses a few quotes, ignores and inexplicably does not provide context for what Lincoln -- or the country -- went through in a clear way.

But you would never know that from  his footnotes.  They seem exhaustive - and they are.   Check them all out, though, they often undermine Foner's own narratives. 

Of course, to be a famous leading historian, you need to have the narration in a compelling, self confident, and seemingly valid way.

Accent on the "seemingly".  It's never that Foner lied, it's that he artfully ignores certain things.  He has always know better. 


It was dangerous physically to Lincoln,   and almost absurd for him, to be as outspoken for equality for the races as he was.

But you would need to know all his words -- and context. 

Lincoln would get a bullet to the brain for being radical -- his speech about voting rights for "some educated blacks"  is often used to besmirch  Lincoln, but it was so radical  that it got him killed.  Lincoln did not parse words enough, in that speech, to satisfy John Wilkes Booth, who heard the speech, and changed his plans from kidnap to kill.

And yes, Foner knows that.  But it does not stop Foner, and dozens of other historians, to heap blame on Lincoln for being for voting rights for "educated blacks".

Lincoln did this time and again -- he presented an idea that was so radical it could get him (as it did) killed, certainly his positions about equality earned him the hatred of many- -because he was so radical for "Nigger rights",   Just claiming blacks were human beings -- and that the Declaration of Independence meant "all men are created equal"  was radical as hell, and Lincoln was hated by many even in the North for it.

Stephen A Douglas -- when you learn his actual words and his history,  was all but urging someone, anyone, to shoot Lincoln,  in 1858.   Overstatement? Hyperbole?

Not when you know the facts.


Foner never even hints that again, and again, and again - to his face, behind his back,  before the debates, after the debates, Douglas all but invited violence upon Lincoln (as Douglas had others before) by the most emotional outburst of the Douglas's career.

As you will see, Douglas DID have a role to play in violence -- not by his own hand, but by his own support of sending killers to Kansas, and his very likely role in the beating, almost to death, of US Senator Charles Sumner.

Foner never presented a hint of such basic things, much less details to support it.  Douglas duplicity, to Foner, and his role in sending killers to Kansas, well known to Lincoln, seems like a foreign concept to Lincoln expert Foner.




Lincoln -- in those debates and elsewhere, was actually as radical as anyone in the nation, if not more so, when faced with anything close to that kind of attack.

No one facing the hostile crowds (yes, many were hostile, as you will see) did anything like Lincoln did.  In this way, Lincoln's amazing sense of humor not only disarmed the attacks as far as possible -- Lincoln's logic and humor changed people's minds.

People who came to hear  him, certain they would hate him like they hated anyone for "Nigger rights"  came away with a different impression.

Not enough to win -- but enough not to get shot, and enough to slightly nudge people who before thought blacks were kinda like animals that could talk..

It was an official -- remember this -- official ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Dred Scott, that blacks were not human beings (not persons) under the law.  Blacks were "inferior beings" -- and "so inferior" that no white man need to respect any right by those with "African blood".

As the was then, nor is now, any test than determine your race by your blood,  they went by skin tone.

Blacks were the inferior beings, ordained by God to be enslaved, said Southern leaders, prooved as such by the Supreme Court itself,.

As Lincoln pointed out again and again, by this logic, if you met a man with lighter skin that you, you could be enslaved by him, withe the backing of the Supreme Court. 

Lincoln knew -- and we do not discuss this now, even in history class -- that the Supreme Court ORDERED -- yes, ORDERED that blacks be seeing as inferior beings, not was human beings, not as persons.  If you study Lincoln's speeches -- or the US Supreme Court decision in detail, you would already know this.


Nonsense -- the issue was whether they were human beings, persons.   And the court said -- they were not human beings, not persons, but property.

What a vile thing to do -- and how vile our "historians" who let them now whitewash this to "citizenship".   Blacks, by order of the court, must be seen as inferior beings, NOT persons, but property.

Why the hell do we not teach it -- Jeff Davis boasted of this as justification for the Civil War, that the North was not obeying the Supreme Court by forcing slavery into Kansas.  Kansas could  not reject slavery, Davis said at length, because of Dred Scott decision on this pint.

From the actual decision.... "The Constitution of the United States recognizes slaves as property, and pledges (orders) the Federal government to protect it (slavery).


In the debates Lincoln was attacked over and over for being radical -- just because he said slaves were human beings.

So this was much more than an issue of semantics -- and "citizenship".

Lincoln tried his best to come across as moderate and practical -- and wisely so.  Yet Lincoln ran up a history of radical statements and positions -- Foner should have told you that.

Lincoln said, for example,  that slave owners deserved to be kicked to death.  Kicked. To. Death.  Radical enough for you?  Foner never mentioned that, or if he did, he did not make a point of it.

Lincoln explained the treachery and violent nature of Kansas Act.   Douglas, of course, with his partner David Rice Atchison, passed the Kansas Act.  Every time LIncoln exposed the treachery of Kansas Act, he was talking about Douglas personally.   Douglas knew it, and so  should have Foner.

To attack Lincoln for Lincoln revealing Douglas duplicity, and the vile wickedness of those involved, Douglas went "full monty,"  not just against Lincoln -- Douglas went on the war path against "Niggers".

No one told you that, did they?   So Douglas lead man in sending killers to Kansas,  because he and Atchison passed the Kansas Act.  Atchison immediately left for Kansas, where he terrorized, and later killed, to spread slavery there.  Killers in Kansas, sent by Stephen A Douglas



Another Douglas foe -- Charles Sumner -- was beaten almost to death on the Senate floor  as Stephen Douglas, who stood feet away -- laughed, according to witnesses

Here Douglas is, as depicted in newspapers then, per witnesses.

Douglas told Sumner, the day before this,  that he deserved to be kicked like a dog.  The next day, Sumner was beaten just feet away from Douglas, as Douglas laughed.

By the way, Sumner told Douglas ealier to stop using the word "Nigger" in the Senate.  Even Southern Senators did not use that word.

Douglas went right on  using the word, in the Senate, and in the Lincoln Douglas debates. 

While Douglas stayed in DC and ran cover for support and pay to Atchison's men, as long as he could.   The other person central in Kansas Act was a guy named Jefferson Davis.

Douglas actually hit Lincoln with far more incendiary and hateful words -- calculated to get Lincoln to back off. 

Lincoln did not back off, be Lincoln had to say things very carefully



Lincoln did not back off, though he did wisely parse words. 

Ask Fonter about Lincoln's full words, and the clear impression he left with the crowd.   Foner might not know.   If Foner knew, and it's important, why didn't Foner mention it?

Foner never mentioned what Bloomington papers said at the time -- that in central and Southern Illinois, 80% of the voters believed Lincoln wanted their daughters to "sleep with Niggers".

Crowds yelled back at Douglas, who went into "anti-Nigger rants"   "down with Niggers".

Then after Douglas got through telling these folks Lincoln wanted their daughters to sleep with blacks -- LIncoln had to speak.

So Lincoln did.



Lincoln did not always keep his cool.  He said, for example, that slave owners deserve nothing but contempt, to be kicked to death.

Did Foner ever select that quote?  Did anyone?    

Lincoln told this to Peoria crowd that Douglas had spoke to about how Lincoln wanted their daughters to sleep with blacks.

Kind of a big deal. In fact, you could lay 10 or 20 Lincoln quotes down side by side, and think "Jesus this guy is extreme". 

Lincoln was not extreme, he was right.  Big difference.

And he was also trying to WIN votes of the people he was talking to.  Most of whom, most of the time, agreed with Douglas, not him.


Foner could have explained that, but chose not to.

He instead push almost on every page, the notion that Lincoln "didn't really care"  or "was reluctant" to end slavery.

Lincoln was reluctant to run off like a fool, push whites in the North into more sympathy than they already were with slave owners of the South.

Lincoln also knew  -- and spoke many times -- of the need to get public sentiment to end slavery.  Most people today think the vast majority of people in the North wanted to end slavery.  That's simply not true.

In fact, most people of the North were afraid of black men taking white women --which is exactly why Stephen A Douglas  went to that well again, and again, and again .

Douglas would have easily defeated Lincoln AGAIN if three candidates, Douglas and two others, did not run against Lincoln. Lincoln did not even get 40% of the public vote.  Douglas was set to defeat Lincoln by MORE than ever before, if that did not happen, because of the reluctance of Northerners to put someone into office that "wanted Niggers"  to sleep with their daughters.



You will search in vain for Foner to tell you (unless we missed it).  Foner sure as hell did not list the facts that would make Lincoln seem radical as hell -- when all his actions and words are known.

The only topic where Douglas yelled and ran from side to side of the stage,  was when he accused Lincoln of wanting the daughters of white men to "Sleep with Niggers"?

Do you want your wife to walk down the street with "Niggers".?

Do you want your daughter to sleep with "Niggers"?

Lincoln wants that. 

This was not a one -and-done thing.  This is the center dish Douglas served,  And Foner had to ignore that or his entire narrative of Lincoln has to change. 

Douglas knew  how to get the crowd to cheer -- others did it just like Douglas did, but not as loudly or well. Foner knows how to sell a narrative -- and books. 

Both men were deceptive, but Foner less so,  got rich off it.  All the USA got from Douglas actions was the Civil War.


Lincoln was not the only one accused of "wanting your daughters to sleep with Niggers"  but he was the main one, the one Douglas focused on for years.

Douglas was smart -- it was political gold to get the crowds to think your opponent would have your daughters sleep with blacks.  Bloomington papers, at the time, said that 80% of the voters (white males) believed Douglas was right --Lincoln would have their daughters sleep with blacks.

This was voting gold -- and Douglas spent it freely, because all he had to do was scream it, run side to side of the stage, and get people worked up.

When Lincoln got up, he better have an answer for the charge "you want our daughters to sleep with ______ and you want our wives to walk down streets with them.  You want our children to go to school with their children."

Lincoln used every possible thing he knew how -- logic, humor, appeals to humanity, and above all, Lincoln used the spreading cancer of slavery.

The Cancer?

Because of Kansas Act --which Douglas and Atchison passed -- and Dred Scott, which Douglas advocated with all his zeal, now slavery was going to spread everywhere, or slavery was going to die.

There was hardly a speech by Lincoln where Lincoln did not pound this home again, and again and again.   Because of Dred Scott, slavery will spread, or slavery will die.  We will be all one thing, or all the other. 

And Lincoln was right.

(If you don't think Lincoln was correct -- that Dred Scott and Kansas Act did in fact push slavery into an "all or nothing" cause -- see this



"We can not be half slave and half free-- we will be all one thing or we will be the other"  to which Douglas replied that Lincoln had just declared war upon the South.

Lincoln refused to back down from "we will be all one thing or another". Why?  Because he knew he was right. Slavery was going to end, or the Union would end. 

There was no other outcome -- not because of Lincoln-- but because Dred Scott had made it impossible to stop the spread of slavery.  It had to go, or slavery had to go.

Lincoln made sure -- by 13th Amendment -- that slavery went,  that Dred Scott went.   And that the Declaration of Independence stayed.  And that a government "for the people, by the people"  did not perish from this earth. 



ANY move to have any equality under the law was met time and time again wither accusation of "Nigger worshipper"   "obssessed with Nigger rights"  was going to burn us and our children to death slowly",

This was not some side issue -- it was THE issue, used to not only defeat Lincoln time and time again, but used also to pump up those in the South who did not own slaves, but were terrified that just stopping the spread of slavery would "EXTERMINATE  US"

Men like Lincoln -- went the refrain, thousands of times -- want the South to "sting ourselves to death" or "die by slow fire"   by equality of the races.   Just stopping the spread of slavery -- into Kansas and beyond --would cause the destruction of the white race.

"THIS WAS THE BASIC EMOTIONAL ISSUE OF THE 1850's --  more so than slavery itself.  Blacks will take our white women if they are free"

Smart politicians like Douglas knew exactly what to hit -- over and over and over.   Read closely any speech by Douglas about Lincoln -- he goes there again and again.  

If you saw him in person, it would be clear what the emotional issue was -- because Douglas actually screamed,  waved his hands dramatically, and ran side to side of the stage, according to various reporters.

Then -- then -- Lincoln had to speak.   He had just heard Douglas (and others) trash freedom for blacks because of  "destruction of the white race"   or "our daughters will sleep with " blacks. And Lincoln heard the crowd, many of them, cheer Douglas, and even respond "Down with Niggers".

So when Douglas asked the crowds "Do you want your wife to walk down the streets with Niggers"   and they yelled back "Nooo"  or even "Down with Niggers"  Douglas tapped into a proven way to defeat men like Lincoln.

Douglas would have easily beat Lincoln again -- but three men ran against Lincoln, not just Douglas.  Lincoln did not even get 40% of the vote, but he won the electoral vote, plus got more popular votes than anyone else, and therefore was duly sworn into office, despite an elaborate effort to kill him before he even got to Washington.

Expansion --or Extermination.

The crowds cheered.

Southern Rights -- the right to expland slavery into Kansas and beyond..

Over and over, Douglas told the crowd (and so did many newspapers)  that Lincoln was "obsessed"  with  "rights for the Nigger".  

Which is what many newspapers in the North said too, about Lincoln.  

Douglas did not make it up -- Douglas had dozens of quotes to "prove" Lincoln was obsessed with "Nigger rights".  Douglas had Lincoln's speeches in a leather satchel he took to the debates, and at times read from those Lincoln speeches.

Douglas not only had Lincoln's past speeches --Douglas could recite chapter and verse of Lincoln trying to end slavery in District of Columbia, and Lincoln being against the Mexican War (because, as you will see, the Mexican War was a war to double the size of slavery).

Did you know Northern papers called for Frederick Douglass to be arrested and executed for speaking against slavery in Kansas?

See that below.  Lincoln had to go into cities whose newspapers had advocated Frederick Douglass be executed for speaking against slavery, and were Stephen A Douglas screamed to the crowds that Lincoln wanted their daughters to "sleep with Niggers".

Stephen A Douglas, again and again, in these same cities, made sure the crowd knew Lincoln respected Fred Douglas.   Stephen A Douglas even made up stories that he saw Lincoln and Frederick Douglass together in a carriage --with a white woman. 

Of course Lincoln had never met Fred Douglass at that time, but Stephen A Douglas never did care if something was true, or not. 


Stephen A Douglas over and over told the crowds that Lincoln had been with Fred Douglass in a carriage with a white woman.

Unless you knew....

 1) that was false
2)  why S. Douglas would make that joke

.....even if you read it in the debates you would not have a clue what they was a very big deal.   Context is everything at times. 

But you likely did  not read this anyway, and your teacher sure as hell didn't notice and tell you.  

 More about this below -- NORTHERN newspaper-- in Quincy IL -- called for Frederick Douglass's death.

______________________________ NOT JUST THE DEBATES

Douglas, once he threw his ambitions to become President with Southern support, regularly used the slur "Nigger",  and said it with a special disdain in speeches.  In fact, Charles Sumner told Douglas not to use that term on the floor of the Senate, but Douglas went right on  using it, there and elsewhere (even though Southern Senators themselves rarely used the term).

You are not told any of that in our schools,  even though the entire campaign against Lincoln was hateful, as was the entire efforts to spread slavery to Kansas and beyond.

Some newspapers cleaned up Davis's "Nigger rant" invectives such as the term "Nigger"  but the newspapers did report the "rants"  and dramatic screaming, running side to side of the stage yelling. It was common for most papers to edit out the term Nigger.

Sadly, as a result of editing out the ugly and violent nature of what Douglas and others were up to, and show candidly what they said, we have dumbed down the US public for generations.


Slave owners deserve to be kicked to death?

Lincoln actually said that?

Lincoln actually shouted that in his Peoria speech.

It's amazing, but even people who insist the read "all of Lincoln's speeches"  often don't seem to notice the most amazing things.   The "kicking to death" thing is just one of those.

We often hear a vastly different narrative, that Lincoln did not care that much about blacks, or was "totally fine" if slavery continued.   You can find quotes to "prove"  that, this, or the other-- as long as you don't tell the whole story.

Did you know Lincoln said, in another outburst in another public speech, (Knox College) he would hang those in the South if they use violence to spread slavery? (as they were doing from 1856 on in Kansas).

So it all depends what parts of which speech or letter you mention, and what you omit. 



Quoting Lincoln is like quoting the bible -- you can (and many people do) quote him all manner of ways, whatever fits their purpose.

That's not a plot, that is just human nature.

Famous history authors do it -- leave out things, for example --that contradict their narrative.

The narrative, it seems, is what sells, what gets attention.  In the last 50 years hundreds of books have been written showing Lincoln was "reluctant"  to free slaves.

Lincoln was reluctant to have a civil war -- because that might not settle anything at all, besides getting hundreds of thousands killed.

  Hundreds, if not thousands, of times, Lincoln was very careful what he said, so he would no insult the South or their intentions,  though in private it was very clear Lincoln knew just what kind of violent and ruthless men ran the South.

Lincoln knew that in the South, to be more macho, more threatening, more extreme worked politically.  He was extremely well read on almost any book and newspaper he could find about or by those in power re slavery.

Lincoln also knew because he travelled to Kentucky with friends and his wife's family,  spent months in a slave state.

Most interesting -- Lincoln literally slept (roomed, shared the same bed) for 4 years with his friend that was from a slave owning family -- Joshua Fry Speed -Speed was not anti-slavery.  So they had probably thousands of discussions, arguments about slavery.  In fact Lincoln continued those arguments by writing after Speed went back to Kentucky.

Lincoln knew --and said so too many times to count -- that we have reached a place in the spread of slavery (always a violent spread, Lincoln explained, correctly)  where slavery will go to all of the US -- or slavery will end. 

When Lincoln explained that publically, people in the South claimed (including Stephen Douglas) that Lincoln was declaring war.   His friends asked him to walk that back- - he refused.

You know it as the House Divided Speech.


 You can make any narrative  -- and seem perfectly informed -- if you simply omit basic facts, and harp on others, and spell everything correctly.

It's done all the time.  



Lincoln spoke over 2 million words,  in public,  and if you like, you can make Lincoln sound like the most foaming at the mouth "abolitionist" of the day.

Lincoln's "radical mouth" got him a bullet to the brain, did you know that?  (Probably not). 

See why, below.


Even in Northern papers, Lincoln could be, and was, called everything from a traitor to a coward to a "Negro Worshipper"  who cares more for "Niggers" than for whites.

Lincoln had to be very very careful how he responded, because most whites in the North,  as Lincoln knew, were fearful or even hateful to black males.  Even if whites were not pro slavery, whites were made to worry their daughters would be taken by black me.

You are not taught that now -- but that was common, almost routine --accusation of anyone that simply wanted to stop the spread of slavery.

Just stopping the spread of slavery would be like "burning us to death slowly"  explained this Southern leader.

Robert Toombs made it more clear and extreme --stopping the SPREAD of slavery was going to "make us sting ourselves to death"  and destroy the white race.

We must expand slavery -- or we perish.  We will be "exterminated" he said, unless we expand slavery.


You can make Lincoln sound any way you like, if you pick just a few quotes. 

Of course it's proper to quote Lincoln-- just get all his words.  As Frederick Douglas  himself said, he did not judge Lincoln by "stray utterances torn asunder from their meaning".

He judged Lincoln -- because that is what matters- - by his actions. But make no mistake, Douglas was deeply moved by Lincoln's words.

Lincoln desperately needed the public support, the public sentiment.  Every word he said in public he spoke to get pubic support, and if possible, to mollify the South to not try to spread slavery.

Yet Southern leaders were boasting they were at war to spread slavery from 1856 on.



  Lincoln went after slavery in 1846-47-48,  standing up to President Polk and all but  (in that humor filled way of his) calling Polk a liar, and accusing the President of starting the Mexican War on behalf of slave power to double the land for slavery, by killing as many Mexicans as necessary, until Mexico "sold"  us about half of their land.

And Lincoln was hated -- by many in Illinois -- from then on.  He was accused to his face of being disloyal to the United States because he was truthful about Mexican War -- and he was called a traitor by Douglas and Douglas newspapers behind his back.

And many people bought into that.


Get all his quotes, all his words, he was stunningly powerful,  he changed the national way of thinking by his words, actually changed how people thought about slavery.


Lincoln was not the only one who knew the Mexican War was about the spread of slavery -- even if you had no clue. 

Even slave owners like Henry Clay,  a Southern leader,  not only admitted the Mexican War was about spread of salvery, but railed against it more candidly than Lincoln dared to, as freshman Congressman.

One of the reasons Lincoln liked Henry Clay so much -- Clay was one of the few Southern leaders that told the truth about things,  like slavery and the Mexican War.

Did you know that?  Probably not.



Did you know that after Lincoln could not stop the killings in Mexico to steal their land, he tried 40 times to stop slavery from spreading into that land?

Not once -- 40 times. Passionately, resolutely. 

Lincoln knew -- as did everyone -- that once slavery went into the newly stolen land, it would never come out without war.  So he worked as hard as  he could to prevent it.

40 times.

When people tell you crap like "Lincoln never really cared about slavery till half way through the Civil War"  are either stupid, or lying, or both. 

There were damn few people working as hard -- if anyone --to prevent the spread of slavery, and stop slavery where he could, as Lincoln.

Even though he was hated by many at home for it. And when running for Senate, and running for President later, people gave hell to LIncoln for his past efforts against slavery.


Lincoln did not get a bullet to the brain for that one -- but he did earn life long hate and scorn by some -- even in Illinois- - for that honesty and his efforts to stop the war, and then to stop the spread of slavery. 

Lincoln would face scorn for the rest of his life by those who knew and hated him for what he did re slavery in Congress.

But Lincoln was not near done.  After he tried to stop slavery from going into Mexican land -- taken from Mexico -- Lincoln tried to get slavery outlawed in District of Columbia.  

Did you know that?

None of this was popular -- by the way.   Most people were NOT upset  with slavery and the spread of it, and did not want trouble about it.

Gee, for a guy who we are told by "experts" was "nothing special about slavery"  Lincoln sure had a  lot of trouble in his life, and that bullet in the brain at the end, BECAUSE so many insisted he was "obsessed with equality for the Nigger"



While Lincoln did -- at times-  parse words,  he parsed words as he kicked the living shit out of slavery.   Yes, to get elected, and to not get shot sooner, Lincoln had to parse words- - but get ALL his words, in context.

For example, you can find several Lincoln quotes about colonization (voluntary colonization) of free blacks.  Stop there and you are dumber for it.

Get the rest of his quotes -- and  his actions about that.  He also went on to say that colonization was cruel and unfair and unworkable.  But you won't hear that.

Lincoln also, during the Civil War, sent a naval ship to rescue stranded blacks who -- of their own accord -- left the US to set up life in South America, but were starving to death there.

Yeah, Lincoln did that.

There are dozens of such half truths floating around, smugly and stupidly, even by history teachers.

Another is that Lincoln was fine with paying black soldiers less than whites.  At first, black soldiers WERE paid less than whites, but not for long. That's the part you don't know or hear about by the smug people who act as if they know all the facts, and sometimes teach those distortions.

Lincoln personally rectified that pay, and got those black soldiers equal pay.  So you need to know more than the smug slogans and half truths to know what you are talking about, re Lincoln.



Again and again Lincoln lost elections to Stephen A Douglas because Lincoln was so "obsessed" with "Nigger rights" as Douglas screamed to the public, and at Lincoln personally, in the debates. 

Douglas spent much time, in every debate, and in dozens if not hundreds of other speeches, and the newspaper editors he controlled, also spent much time and print,  pointing out how Lincoln cared more for his own race, was for "Niggers" walking down the street with white women, and that Lincoln wanted your daughters to sleep with "Niggers".


In fact, the man who took dictation at most of the Lincoln Douglas debates later said Douglas almost never said the word "Negro"  as you see it, which is the cleaned up version we all learn.

And Douglas said "Nigger" with a special kind of dramatic flair he brought to the debates.  Douglas actually ran from side to side of the stage in Charleston Illinois, screaming such things.

Quincy papers said Douglas "went into his Nigger rants"  against Lincoln.  Newspapers did not usually print the word "Nigger"  in their versions of the debate.


After such speeches -- do you know what Lincoln had to do?

I bet you don't know.

Lincoln had to get up in front of those crowds -- the debates- - and try to respond to being accused of wanting your daughter to sleep with "Niggers",. 

The crowd had just jeered Lincoln, and cheered for Douglas comments. Some newspaper (Knox) reporters noted that the crowed yelled "down with Niggers"  before Lincoln spoke

If you don't know that, you can't make sense of the debates.  And you'd also need to know that Illinois made it a crime for blacks to even come into the state -- the penalty was whipping.  If they stayed, and were caught, they could be whipped every week they stayed.

And that law was supported by many of the people in the state.  Not that Illinois residents were pro-slavery, though some were, particularly in Southern Illinois.  But very few wanted to elect someone who was for your daughter to sleep with the feared and often hated image they had of the black man.


Did anyone tell you that?  No.

In fact, Bloomington Illinois newspapers said 80% of voters (white males) believed Lincoln was obsessed with "nigger equality"  from Bloomington, on South for the rest of the state.

Lincoln lost -- repeatedly -- because even though he parsed words as best he could, so many whites were fearful and or hateful to free blacks, they did not want to risk blacks "walking down the street"  or "sleeping the Niggers".

I bet no one told you that.

It's ugly, yes,  but it's true.  And it's the basic reason for the Civil War, and for Lincoln getting a bullet to the brain.

You should have been told. 


And that was why Lincoln kept losing. 

Lincoln was all set to lose to Douglas -- again -- in 1860 - but three men ran against Lincoln, not one. They split the pro slavery or pro-spread of slavery vote.  If any one of those men ran alone against Lincoln, he would not have won. He didn't even get 40% of the popular vote.

And to even get 40% of the vote, Lincoln had to walk back -- in very parsed words -- his "obsession for Nigger rights" as Douglas and others said.

Turns out, Lincoln's enemies were right, after all. 


But for two generations now, text books and "historians" have hardly uttered a word about Lincoln's radical actions, radical words.

Yet Lincoln got a bullet in the brain for his last speech -- racial as hell for that time and place -- about voting rights for "educated blacks".

Did you now John Wilkes Booth changed  his plan from kidnap to kill when he heard Lincoln's speech about voting rights for blacks? 

Yet thousands of times in the last two generations, those who trash Lincoln will use Lincoln's speech about voting rights for blacks as proof Lincoln was NOT for voting rights for blacks. 

That is how fked up you can get when "experts"  only tell you part of a story to fit their narrative. 


 Lincoln first put guns in the hands of thousands of black men --- at a time when blacks could be hung for just  holding a gun.  Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was as radical as he dared get --and fortunately for the USA and world, it worked.  He was not shot in the head till later.

The point is, get all the facts.  Your narrative of anything will be as goofy and as false as you care to make it, if you don't include all of the basic facts. Lincoln the radical -as -hell President is a valid narrative, when you learn all the fact.

In fact, Lincoln was radical was hell, in words and actions, when you get all the words and actions.



Did anyone ever tell you Lincoln spoke more than two million words in over 2000 speeches about slavery?

In fact, you can quote Lincoln like you do the bible -- any way you want. For example, Lincoln  said in Peroria Illinois that slave owner deserve to be kicked to death.

Let me repeat that -- kicked to death. 

Yet no history teacher in his right mind would teach that Lincoln wanted to kick slave owners to death.



As you will see below, Lincoln was hated -- despised -- by many in the North, and was unelectable in Illinois after tried to get slavery outlawed in the land just stolen from Mexico, and in the District of Columbia.

You want to suprise your history teacher,   ask  them what they know about Lincoln in Congress trying to outlaw slavery in hundreds of thousand of square miles in 1847, and the result hate Lincoln faced for that, for the rest of his life.

They probably won't know what you are talking about.

But they should -- they should know because it was common knowledge then -- newspapers in Illinois trashed Lincoln Lincoln was essentially unelectable after that in a one on one race against STephen A Douglas, who  used that to trash Lincoln as "Negro lover"  who "wants your daughtes to sleep with Niggers"/



The same teacher who could not tell you (because they don't know) that Lincoln said slave owner should be kicked to death,  could not tell you that Lincoln eventually got a bullet in the brain because he had dared to speak (just speak) in a very mild way about voting rights for blacks?

Yes, Booth changed  his plan from kidnap to "bullet in the brain" when he heard Lincoln speak about voting rights for "educated blacks".  

Today, Lincoln's last speech, about voting rights for blacks  is shown to "prove"  Lincoln was "not really for equality".

But at the time, he got a bullet to the brain, because that was so radical.  

Unless you know that, to be blunt, you can't know what went on in USA leading up to the Civil War.  You will not only not know about Lincoln -- you will not know about widespread public sentiment,  sentiment that Lincoln knew well.   Lincoln tried very hard to speak "softly and carry a big stick"  and he beat the living crap out of slavery as soon as he had the power.    But he spoke too radically that day, and within 24 hours, he was dead.


Lincoln will give "Niggers" the vote said Stephen A Douglas, and such actions will "destroy the white race" said others.

Yes, at times  Lincoln said the most radical things (like slave owners should be kicked to death).   And other things. If you just take those quotes, and no others, you can make him sound like a man driven to destroy slavery where it was, and his supposed desired to hang Southern leaders.

Just depends which quotes you use. 

This of course is not unique to Lincoln, any historical figure you can quote any way you want.  You need more than a few quotes given by a self confident teacher  -- you need to get all the words, and even more importantly, their actions, in context.


Did you even know Lincoln said slave owners should be "kicked to death"?  Most people in Peoria Illinois do not now that, it is not taught at all, in Peoria schools that I know. 

Yet Lincoln said that in Peoria. And he said a lot of things in a lot of places.


Did you know Lincoln once yelled that he would "do what they did to John Brown"  (in other words, hang them) if   Southern leaders if they tried to spread slavery by violence?

Did anyone ever tell you Lincoln said- - hundreds of times -- that blacks ARE equal to any white person in their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

In fact -- and no one told you this --- Lincoln never won an election, nor did anyone else, if they dared say blacks and whites were equal under the law, and that all laws should apply to blacks and whites without regard to color?

People today -- and history teachers are guilty of this assumption -- assume that a politician in the US could win anything -- dog catcher, any office at all, if they were for "perfect equality".

In fact, the most "radical"  abolitionist speakers of the day would not dare utter such extreme statements.   Over and over again, even the "radical abolitionist" leaders,  including the likes of Frederick Douglass himself, would hedge somewhat at times, and say "over time"   that changes must be made.   Frederick Douglass once in favor of colonization ---- voluntary colonization.

Historians and history teachers, of course, should not be stupid about context or the full story.   Sadly, some are eager to trash Lincoln even now, and do so only if they distort the picture, and do not tell how amazingly radical -- in word and deed, Lincoln was.

Did anyone ever even MENTION how radical that was -- how Lincoln better say that very very carefully -- and that he lost elections because he said blacks and whites are equal per the Declaration of Indpendence?

Stephen Douglas would actually quote Lincoln,  repeatedly --- for his extreme statements about equality.  And Douglas would yell -- "Ss that what you want?   Do you want Niggers on your juries?  Do you want Niggers in your schools?"

Douglas got crowds to yell back "No -- down with Niggers".

Then, Lincoln had to get up to speak.

If you don't know that -- you really don't know shit about US history and what was actually going on leading up to the US Civil War. 

Lincoln was not the only one who faced this amazing onslaught of hate and fear mongering.  It was not just Douglas screaming such things, in fact, it was COMMON in many places that anyone who was against the spread of slavery was hated (yes hated)  because their opponents would rip into them for "Nigger lover".

I can't help it that no one told you. Don't blame me.  Go tell your history teacher to learn more basic facts, and try again. 

Did you know Lincoln went to Kansas, and there spoke against slavery, after Southern leaders made it a crime to speak publically against slavery there? (As it was against the law in most of the South to speak publically against slavery)/

See, it helps to know many basic facts on any period of history, to arrive at any kind of understanding.  You would be made to believe -- as some tried to make the public believe then,  that Lincoln was not only radical for the "Niggers"   but that Lincoln's goal was to always destroy slavery in the South by force.  He was accused of that over and over.

And people believed it.

According to Bloomington Illinois newspapers, 80% of white male voters thought Lincoln was dangerous because he would have their daughters "sleep with Niggers".    That newspaper was against Lincoln. According to Bloomington newspaper at the time, Lincoln being to "radical for niggers" was the reason Stephen A Douglas defeated Lincoln for Senate in 1858.

Others did get a bullet to the brain -- even in Illinois -- during Lincoln's time in politics there.   There was physical danger to be as radical as Lincoln.   It was also political suicide- - no one could get elected anywhere in Illinois, nor in 95% of the United States, if they  dared say or write that blacks should be able vote or marry white women.

In fact,  NO publically supported law for the next 100 years allowed blacks to marry whites in the United Sates, and it took a liberal Supreme Court -- not the public through legislation - that allowed such a thing. 

Lincoln was trashed most viciously -- to his face, the most powerful speaker of that century (arguably Stephen A Douglas) screamed at Lincoln -- that he "wanted your daughters to sleep with Niggers"   and "marry Niggers".

This was a time -- and place -- where whites could be, and were, phsically attacked in some settings for being "a nigger lover".    Lincoln was "full of Niggerisms"  and "cared more for Niggers than his own race."

The very men, and the very newspapers that trashed Lincoln this way for years, often said they were not for slavery either.  They were against "Niggers"  walking down the street with your wife,  sleeping with their daughters, and "exterminating the white race."  



Lincoln earned hatred -- for the rest of his life -- in Illinois, for his very early and extreme actions against slave power.

While in Congress in 1847, Lincoln stood up to President Polk for the Mexican War, a war Lincoln knew, and much fo the US knew, was really a war to double the size of slavery. 

It would help if we taught that the Mexican War was, in fact, a war conconcoted -- US started a killing spree of Mexicans to get the war going, then did not stop killing them until Mexico had to "sell"  basically all of its best land to the US.

Lincoln then -- after he could  not stop the Mexican War -- tried 47 times in Congress to keep slavery out of the land we just stole (yes, we stole it, by violence) from Mexico.

Then -- when LIncoln failed to get the sentiment in Congress to stop slavery from going into the land just stolen, Lincoln immediately tried to end slavery in Washington DC. 

These were basic facts people knew at the time, yet it's almost never -- ever  -- mentioned when well meaning but stupid teachers try to paint Lincoln as not caring, or not fighting, slavery.

When you learn what Lincoln DID -- and his full words -- you will see just how amazingly radical he was. 



As we alluded to above, the Quincy newspaper (Quincy was the site of one of the debates)  urged death to Frederick Douglass for speaking against slavery in Kansas. Let me repeat that, I show you the actual (picture of) that paper below.  Quincy newspaper wrote that Frederick Douglass should be put to death for speaking against slavery.

 More about this, below. 


" Quincy reporter wrote that Douglas just went "into his Nigger rant" -- as apparently it was routine."


Stephen A Douglas just not just scream this -- according to newspaper writers then, Douglas ran from side to side of the stage screaming it.

At no other point was Douglas so extreme, so loud.

And so effective.

 Douglas worked himself into a frenzy when he hit the topic -- as he did often -- of Lincoln and "Niggers" 

Yes, he said "Niggers"  and with great disdain, according to the man who actually took shorthand to record and then transcribe the Lincoln Douglas debates.   Newspapers, and stupidly,  history books, have cleaned up Douglas's rants, and taken out the "Niggers" references, and put in "Negro".

It was not just "Nigger"  -- it was done with a venom, and effectiveness that worked. Lincoln did not debate Douglas in the Presidential election in 1860.  Douglas was going to easily win in 1860,  he would have defeated Lincoln likely with over 60% of the votes..  but two other pro slavery men ran, too, so Lincoln was the only one of four candidates who was steadfastly against the spread of slavery.

 Quincy reporter wrote that Douglas just went "into his Nigger rant" -- as apparently it was routine.


Douglas did the screaming, ran side to side, spoke dozens of times apart from Lincoln, too, in even more heated hate, FOR A REASON.... it worked. Douglas won that race. Douglas defeated Lincoln because he convinced the public that Lincoln was a danger to the white race..

As you will see, Bloomington papers reported that 80% of the downstate people (many of whom loved Lincoln personally) thought Lincoln wanted their daughters to sleep with Niggers. 

Indeed, it was-- the man who did most of the short hand, on the spot dictation for the debates, said Douglas always used the word "Nigger".  Almost never "Nergo"  though our copies of the Lincoln Douglas debates have  And he did so with a special kind of venom, all but inviting whites in the audience to despise Lincoln.

Lincoln was "obsessed" for "Nigger equality".  



So Lincoln LOST this race.  He was not careful enough, he did not convince the public that he was NOT radical, as Douglas claimed. Lincoln did not want to debate Douglas again, when he ran against him two years later for President.

In fact, Lincoln would have lost that race -- for the same reason -- again, but for President, three men ran against Lincoln, not just Douglas. Lincoln did not get near half the votes.   But he got enough popular votes, and enough electoral votes, to win at 40% .

In other words, in 1860,  most people were still against Lincoln, and against him because of his "obsession" for equality for the "Niggers". 

Two questions:

1) why would Douglas say such things?

2) why are we not told of this in a candid way?

and a more important question.....

3) How did Lincoln respond.....



Almost 100% of the time, those who trash Lincoln in part or fundamentally trash him, refer to about 8 quotes.    Certainly quotes matter.  But as you will see,  pick ANOTHER 8 quotes, and you can make Lincoln seem like hell bent for leather to not just kill to stop slavery where it is (as he was accused of repeatedly) but that Lincoln favored killing slave owners, war or no.

Of course Lincoln did NOT favor killing slave owners.  The point is, arranging the quotes differently, you could induce a stupid (low information) person of that. 

In fact, Lincoln's enemies tried to pass him off hundreds of times, including screaming into his face as Douglas did in front of thousands of people,  that Lincoln was obsessed with "Nigger equality" and "wants your daughters to sleep with Niggers".

Why the hell did we clean that up,  and not tell the coarse, but very central story, of why Douglas repeatedly accused Lincoln of obsession for Niggers, and for black men to "sleep with your daughters".

It was NOT just Douglas.   White women will be sleep with "Niggers"  -- unless slavery is spread.  Yes, that was basic message of Southern leaders, and likely no one told you that.  That was the emotional knife Douglas used to stab Lincoln again, and again, and again.

And it worked. As you will see, according to Bloomington papers at the time, 80% of white males,  many of who were personally fond of Lincoln, still thought he wanted their daughters to "Sleep with Niggers". 

And there is much more.  You would not know any of that, much less all of that, from any US text book.

Yes -- who knew?   Which quotes  you pick, happen to matter.  And that is without even considering his more amazing actions --radical as hell, 1847 on.

Who could have guessed?   You need all the facts to know what the hell you are talking about.

Most people today  have no clue just how radical Lincoln was.

And how he was hated for being radical.

And that he was killed for being radical.

In fact, Lincoln had to -- incessantly during his run for Senate and Presidency -- be very very careful how he said slavery had to end.   His fundamental message -- and he was right -- is that slavery will, because of the machinations of Kansas Act and Dred Scott,  spread to all of the US, or it will be destroyed.

The US will end.  Or slavery will end.

This astonishing position is not even addressed today, as if Lincoln's hundreds of speeches explaining this was some kind of joke or hyperbole.  To be that stupid, we as a nation have ignored  Southern leaders loud, proud, repeated, official and unofficial boasting of killing to spread slavery to all of the US. 

When you learn of Southern leaders BOASTING -- officially, in context, for years, that they were killing to spread slavery, you will realize if anything, in public, Lincoln was too polite (though he was not polite in private about this).

Nor was Lincoln the only one saying this.  Southern leaders from 1856 on had boasted about it. BOASTED.   And if you don't believe me,  look at their own declarations, their own speeches, their own documents, their own newspapers, their own books -- until they lost.

Remember this -- until they lost, Southern leaders indeed, clearly, loudly, proudly, emphatically, in context, and in detail, bragged they were killing to spread slavery 1856 on.

See- - all the facts really do matter.



Lincoln just did not see it effective to die any sooner than he did die, by being too blunt.  Others were killed -- as you will see -- even in Illinois, for being more blunt that he.

Plus, Lincoln actually had to adhere to the law, public sentiment, and personal survival.   So he did.  But when Lincoln could do so, he kicked the living fk out of slavery, and did not stop kicking it until not only slavery was ended, maybe more important, the very GOD of slavery was no more.

Powerful kicking, that. 

Although many of Lincolns words were extreme -- like  his assertion that slave owners should be kicked to death -- we don't  hear about those speeches.   But people at the time heard about this aspect of Lincoln pretty much every day, thanks to Stephen A Douglas and pro-slavery newspapers.

No one told you that, did they?


Lincoln was radical as hell -- did you know his quotes that slave owners deserved to be kicked to death?

Probably not.  I've yet to meet a history teacher who knows Lincoln said slave owners deserved to be kicked to death, yet that quote is in a speech most of them assign to advanced students to read.

Lincoln also said he would do to the South what they did to John Brown.  Let that sink in. No one told you that, either. 

Yes, in public, most of the time, Lincoln had to be very -- very -- careful what he said.  Why?   Well, to stay alive for one reason.  People were still being killed, even in Illinois, for being "too radical for Niggers".

Again, and again, Lincoln was accused of  "nothing but Niggerisms"  and accused of "wanting your daughter to sleep with Niggers".   To his face, in front of thousands of people, REPEATEDLY,  Stephen A Douglas, the most powerful speaker of the time, screamed at Lincoln (yes he did) that Lincoln wanted "Niggers"  not only to sleep with your daughter,  but Lincoln wanted Niggers in your schools, on your juries.  Is that what you want, shouted Douglas.

NO -- down with Niggers -- came the reply.

Then Lincoln had to speak -- after the crowd often hated Lincoln, stirred up by Douglas.




Not my fault you didn't know.  Don't blame me.  Blame the creepy bastards who never taught this basic thing to begin with -- and it was central to everything.

Over and over speakers like Stephen A Douglas attacked Lincoln to his face, behind his back, in the press.  And crowds cheered for Douglas.

And DOUGLAS WON repeatedly -- Lincoln never defeated Douglas until there were four candidates, three against Lincoln.

Douglas would have won -- easily -- again, if Lincoln had to run against him alone.  Why don't people know that?  Lincoln would have lost because overwhelmingly people were afraid that black men would take white women.

We have whitewashed this basic issue -- stupidly.

 Central not to just the Lincoln Douglas debates (it was not a side issue -- it was THE issue)  it was central to the Civil War.   Will "Niggers" take the white women.

Yes, an ugly ugly but very real truth, and we should teach it as it was,  because Southern leaders  made that very clear themselves.

We have heard it a million times.  Lincoln "did not really care" about slavery. Lincoln only "brought slave issue up late in the war".

Lincoln was "reluctant" and "did not believe in equality" to end slavery.   He was "nothing special"  and had to be "shamed and pushed" to actually do anything about slavery.


Yet Lincoln -- to his face, and in newspapers for years prior to the Civil War,  all but urged his death.   Lincoln was "so extreme"  he was lucky he was killed much sooner, as others were.  Forget not getting elected, Lincoln had to use all his humor, amazing rhetoric, not to get shot or attacked before he ever even ran for US Senate.

In fact, Lincoln was hated -- hated -- by many from 1847 on, when Lincoln, as a Congressmen, dared to be against the murders and tortures we now call the Mexican War.   Do you know WHY Lincoln was against that war? Probably you have no clue!

Lincoln was against that war because -- even as Southern leaders like Henry Clay said, and everyone knew -- the war was fought for slave power to double the area for slavery.  Not kind of, not sort of, that is what the war was for, and Lincoln did all he could, first to stop it, and then to prevent slavery in that land just stolen.

But the land was stolen in order to double the area for slavery, so of course  Lincoln -- who tried over 40 times -- could not stop the spread of slavery into that land.  It would take another war -- started by the same people, by the way -- to spread slavery further, only Lincoln was President then, and did something to stop it.  Namely, Lincoln fought back in 1861.   He did not have the power, authority, or public sentiment behind him in 1847.




The fact we do not teach the Mexican War as a successful attempt, pushed by slave power, to steal land to double the area for slavery is the same reason most people are stupid about US history, even  history teachers.    If you don't know that, you can't really make sense of what was going on 1840-1865, no matter how many books you read about it, how many speeches, or how many lectures in school you have sat through.

At best you may see, in high school classes, a SENTENCE -- one sentence, that the Mexican War had anything whatsoever to do with slavery or the violent spread of it.    Yet that is what got Lincoln hated in the first place, even by many in Illinois.   Stephen A Douglas used this -- Lincoln being against the Mexican War -- repeatedly in the Lincoln Douglas debates.  Yet you are not taught even THAT.

Douglas also repeatedly screamed -- and got the crowds to scream back against Lincoln -- that Lincoln wanted their daughters to sleep with "Niggers" and would destroy the white race. 

These basics -- as basic as can be -- a simply not mentioned, and never ever made clear in any US high school text books.  In some college text books, that is covered more, but only in an avalanche of other information, and not as the most central aspect of the US Civil War and what Lincoln was about.

That is as true of high schools in Springfield Illinois, as in Atlanta Georgia.  Our national text books have stupidly omitted the vile things proudly done by men like Jeff Davis and Robert  E lee,  to push slavery more and more, always more, in a never ending violent attempts, from 1840 on, to double, then double again, then double again, the land for slavery.


It's not just  uninformed (but smug) high school history teachers that tell us this.....  those teachers got the information from others, from "experts" and even from Pulitzer Prize winning, highly respected historians.  Eric Foner claimed Lincoln was "nothing special"  but "over time"   and against his own early beliefs, joined those "true abolitionist"  when it became politically wise to do so.

Lincoln only joined the "true abolitionist"  to further his political power.  

Is that remotely true?

Not even close.... In fact, Lincoln was as or more radical, as or more eager, to kick slavery to death than anyone else who dared to run for political office in the "West"  as Illinois was still considered when Lincoln got into politics.  

Lincoln was so radical,  he was fortunate (and wise) not to get a bullet to the brain sooner than he did.   Lincoln did get that bullet to the brain in due time, and he got that bullet BECAUSE he was so radical, as you will see.

But to see that, you have to know the facts -- not the slogans, not the juxtaposition  and at times distortions about Lincoln's words and actions.  

Lincoln was hated,   hated by many in his own state, and lucky he was not shot like others were (largely because Lincoln  used a wonderful sense of humor in public to disarm the hate toward him personally).   


Surely -- surely -- the "historians"  know the facts, right?   And they take those facts into account.   

Uh....   I was surprised to learn, not so much.  There is, and it's quite natural, it's human nature, a strong tendency to bullshit --to make yourself SOUND wise, smart, profound, and knowledgeable. 

Just the human tendency to bullshit is a big problem in most, if not all, human communication.   Social sciences, including history, are no exception. 



DAMN RADICAL according to his enemies and friends.

But you can only know that, when you get all the facts.  As Frederick Douglas himself explained -- he knew Lincoln not by stray utterances, "torn from their connection".  

He knew Lincoln by "full measure" -- meaning, what Lincoln did.  Not by a quote here, a quote there.  And Douglass knew Lincoln's full words, not just isolated quotes.

Why would Douglas insist - dozens of times -- that Lincoln was "radical"  and "obsessed with equality for the Nigger"?  

Why would newspapers claim  Lincoln was a "Negro worshipper"   and full of "Niggerism"  and cared for the black race more than his own race? 

Lincoln was a "Negro Worshipper" -- and most white voters, over 80% of them in central and Southern Illinois, according to Bloomington papers at the time,  thought Lincoln wanted your daughters to "sleep with Niggers",

If your history teacher tells you that the Lincoln Douglas debates were about Dred Scott, or "popular sovereignty"  there are not telling you the basics.

The Lincoln Douglas debates were about your daughters "sleeping with Niggers".   I can't help it if that topic does not get taught, much less show.  But that is what Douglas ran from side to side of the platform screaming -- nothing else.

That is what 80% of the voters cared about, according to Bloomington papers.

And that is what Lincoln had to deal with, not just in the debates, but in every speech he made.  Lincoln was exceedingly aware -- and your "history teacher" is not -- that the issue the people cared about was "Niggers" voting, "Niggers"  marrying your daughter, sleeping with your daughter.

It was not just Douglas screaming it -- it was the refrain by many attacking anyone (Lincoln most of all) who dared to challenge the spread of slavery.   By simply challenging the SPREAD of slavery Lincoln was "going to exterminate the white race".



 Very basic -- and not taught at all.   The basic approach to spread slavery, not just keep slavery, but to spread it, was to scare the shit out of white voters, which meant white male voters.  

Not just Lincoln -- but anyone that questioned -- just questioned -- the spread of slavery was hit with this "Nigger worshipper"  meme.

Even Southern leaders, if they were not eager enough for the spread of slavery, were called "abolitionists" themselves!!   Stephen Douglas, who railed hundreds, thousands fo times, against "Niggers"  and preached against the black race as  not fully human, was not hateful ENOUGH at the end, he was called an "abolitionist"  when he, late in the game, was against the killings going on in Kansas to spread slavery against state's rights.

Lincoln was extreme as hell, in the mind of Northern voters and even worse, in the South.  "Nigger worshipping fanatics" according to Richmond papers.

And it was not just words -- even in the North, as you will see, people were still being killed, during Lincoln's life, in Illinois for being "too radical" for "Niggers".

Why was Lincoln and people like him the  "North's Nigger Worshipping Fanatics" according to Richmond newspapers.  

In fact, Lincoln was destroying the white race,  some said?   Why?  Why would they say that, repeatedly,  publically,  and loudly?

Maybe because of things like this....?

Slave owners, Lincoln said, deserve only to be kicked to death...... gee, I bet no one told you that, right?

Radical enough?

Kicked -- to death! 




-----  SIDEWAYS 

The idea that Lincoln "didn't really care" about slavery and "was nothing special about race"   would surprise the hell out of his friends, and enemies, alike.

When you know all Lincoln's actions, and his full words, you won't be fooled by liars about how amazing Lincoln was.  We will talk about this more, but briefly.....

Lincoln as freshman Congressman, in 1847, stood up to President Polk after Polk started a war -- really a killing spree --- against Mexico.  The goal of that killing spree  was the spread of slavery into double the land it was already in, and to take land from Mexico in order to do so.

I can't help it if you didn't know the Mexican war was a killing spree, and that the US, particularly Polk and his slave power friends, started that killing sprees in order to get more land to spread slavery.

Not kinda.  Not sorta. Not in a way.

And it was well known.   Southern leader Henry Clay admitted to it, himself a slave owner. Others, even in the South, admitted that's what was going on.

Lincoln tried to stop the killing sprees, and stop the war. He could not do so.


After Lincoln could not stop the war, he tried 40 times (remember this) 40 times to stop the spread of slavery into the land just stolen.  Of course, slave power was not going to go through the trouble of stealing that land for slavery, then agree to keep slavery out of it.

Lincoln's 40 attempts to stop slavery from going there, also failed, because he had virtually no support in Congress.  Polk sold the war as for our "national honor" and lied to the public saying US has been attacked.  Lincoln and others knew better -- Lincoln tried unsuccessfully to get Polk to explain where the US was attacked.

It was POLK and slave power who attacked Mexicans on their own land, killed them, then claimed the Mexicans attacked US troops o US land.  Not true at all.


And estimated 99% of high school history teachers don't even know the Mexican War was a war to spread slavery, and that Lincoln stood up against it.   That is not stated in any US history book either.  But Lincoln's stand against this war -- these killing sprees -- shaped the rest of his life.

It was a BFD.

And Lincoln was hated for it, by many, back in Illinois.  

Stephen Douglas used this against Lincoln repeatedly, claiming Lincoln "aided and abetted the enemy" in a time of war.  Douglas knew well that US went to war to spread slavery, in fact three times the US went to war to spread slavery, as you will see.  Douglas played a very large role in starting two of those wars, personally.


Lincoln also  said he would "do to the South"  what they did to John Brown, if the South tried to carry out its plan to spread slavery.    No one told you that, either?

Stephen Douglas -- to his face, repeatedly -- told Lincoln and the crowds that Lincoln was declaring war on the South.  He had aided and abetted the enemy during Mexican War, and now he was declaring war on the South.

I can't help it if you are not taught that, either, and if your history teacher never heard of such a thing.   These horrific and basic truths were whitewashed in our school text books.  

 What did the South do to Brown?

They hung him.

Radical enough for you?

How about Lincoln got a bullet to the brain, BECAUSE he said "educated blacks" deserve voting rights.

Yes, Booth changed his plan from kidnap to kill, after he  heard Lincoln's last speech -- the one about voting rights for blacks.  Voting rights for blacks, insisted many white folks,  was going to be the death of the white race.

To know how radical Lincoln was, you have to know more than bullshit.... you have to know what the fuck was going on.

This might help....

And by the way -- this guy, Frederick Douglass -- said Lincoln was "swift, radical, zealous and determined"   to end slavery.   Was that guy stupid?

Hell no Douglass was not stupid..... and he explained, at length, how Lincoln was radical.  Lincoln was radical because he had to  bring along public sentiment, most of which was fiercely anti-equality, and even pro-slavery.  Lincoln was obligated to operate not as king,  but as the man in charge of lawfully obeying the Constitution -- including the odious, hideous ruling of the Supreme Court on slavery in Dred Scott.

Lincoln obeyed the law -- as he changed the law, with 13th Amendment.   But Lincoln did much more than pass the 13th Amendment.

As you will see, Lincoln killed the South God of slavery.  More about that, below....


Douglass not only knew what Lincoln did -- Douglass knew what the hell Lincoln faced.  And if you don't realize how radical Lincoln was, you don't know the complete set of facts.

Yes, facts matter....who knew?


Lincoln "Nothing special"  said Eric Foner.

Oh, really?

BUT BUT BUT  -- we were told by "experts" like Eric Foner who insisted Lincoln "was nothing radical about racism"  and "evolved slowly" to be against slavery.    

Actually, Lincoln from 1847 on, showed extermely radical actions and words against slavery.  

But -- you'd have to know what the hell he did.   And what the hell he said.  And more, what the hell was going on. For example, Lincoln went to Kansas after -- after -- it was a crime in Kansas to even speak against slavery.

Lincoln stood up to President Polk -- was called a traitor and Nigger Worshipper the rest of his life for it --  about the war to spread slavery that we call the Mexican American War.

Yes, the Mexican American war was a war concocted by slave power to spread slavery, to take half of Mexican land, and spread slavery, which Lincoln tried to stop.

Foner "forgot" to tell you that, because if he did he could not to on and on how Lincoln was "nothing special".

Lincoln also then tried -- 40 times-- to stop the spread of slavery into the land just stolen from Mexico.   Foner forgot to mention that in a candid way, for the same reason.

If Foner told you that Lincoln stood up to Polk, tried to stop the Mexican War, because it was a war to spread slavery, then tried 40 times to stop the spread of slavery into that land,  he could not do  his bullshit.

Foner does mention aspects of that -- but he certainly fails to show them clearly, and how hated Lincoln was because of it.

And,  Lincoln was not done. Then Lincoln tried to end slavery in the District of Columbia.   Now remember, that's all YEARS before the Civil War.  YEARS before Lincoln ran for Senate. Years before the Lincoln Douglas debates.   Radical as hell -- and hated by many for it.


To claim Lincoln was "nothing special" would surprise the living hell out of his enemies, like Stephen A Douglas,  and Jeff Davis, and Alexander Stephens, and John Booth.

 Lincoln, and most people alive in the 1850's. Lincoln was lucky (and so was the world lucky) that Lincoln did not, as others did, get a bullet to the brain sooner.  People just don't get it --as John Palmer pointed out 30 years after the Civil War, people had already started to forget how violent slave power was.  People were still being killed in Illinois during Lincoln's life for speaking out against slavery, particularly in the central and Southern part of Illinois.

In fact, Quincy papers called for the DEATH of Frederick Douglas --Lincoln's enemies often taunted Lincoln as a friend of "Nigger" Douglass -- just for speaking against slavery in Kansas.

As Bloomington papers reported at the time, 80% of the white male voters in central and Southern Illinois thought Lincoln wanted "niggers"  to sleep with their daughters.

Did you know that?

When Lincoln rose to speak, which he did thousands of times, he had to be damn careful not to say things in a way that got himself killed sooner.  And he was considered, even though he parsed words, a "nigger worshipper"  to many.

Stephen A Douglas constant rants (newspapers called them rants) against Lincoln for his "nigger worship"  had an effect.  It was not just DOuglas in his speeches, it was newspapers in Illinois, some  of whom destested Lincoln for exactly that -- for his radical "obsession"  about equality.

Why would people who knew Lincoln best, who voted him out in several elections, think Lincoln was too radical for equality?   Because they didn't get their information from Foner.   Foner is a fine historian -- fine meaning he does a great job with footnotes and writes well.   But his "schtick"  his "hook"  his "claim to fame"  is this "Lincoln evolved" meme, which is not true.

Lincoln was radical as hell -- in words and actions -- but he was not so stupid as to get himself killed any earlier.  He was careful, and wise, how he did it.  And  he lost several elections because the people saw him as too radical for equality anyway!!!

 Lincoln knew what Foner never told you in any clear way, the basics of Illinois politics during Lincoln's life -- white hatred and fear of black males,  a hate and fear that was pumped up to fever pitch by Lincoln's opponents.

Unless you know what Lincoln faced,  and Foner never did make that clear,  and unless you also know Lincoln's full actions and words in context, it does not matter how many Eric Foner books you read (or many other historians).  You won't know what the hell you are talking about, regarding Lincoln, and regarding what led to the US Civil War.

But if you like wonderful sounding memes, cherry picking facts,  and clean footnote skills, Foner is your man.

 Lincoln said in one speech that he would do to the South, what the South did to John Brown --- the South hung John Brown.

Lincoln also yelled in another speech -- contrary to his usual even temper and kindness -- that he "would not let" the South destroy the United States by this spread of slavery.   Again and again Lincoln showed how the South was, by design, hell bent for leather on spreading slavery into free states and the West.

Lincoln even said -- repeatedly -- that the United States will end, or slavery will end. One or the other.  Stephen Douglas repeatedly said Lincoln had, by saying that, declared war upon the South, and was pushing for violent revolution against the United States Supreme Court.

And there is much more.   The point is, when you get all the quotes, and more, Lincoln's actions, like trying to end slavery in all of the West, and in Kansas, and trying to stop slavery in Washington DC, and standing up to President Polk about Mexican War (Lincoln knew the Mexican war was really a way to spread slavery).

Lincoln, both in word and deed, was radical.   But you would not know it, if you only get part of the story.

What would you think about Lincoln, if you were alive in 1850's?

Depending where you got your information, you would would think Lincoln was.....

1) Nigger Worshipper

2) Traitor to the White Race

3) Wants your daughters to sleep with "Niggers"

4) Wants to invade the South and wage war to free the "Niggers" 


When Lincoln rose to speak, every time he rose to speak after 1854,  most crowds overwhelmingly hated or feared black males.   During the Lincoln Douglas debates, Stephen A Douglas made sure the crowds, already fearful and largely hateful towards black males,  saw Lincoln as "Nigger lover"  who "wanted your daughters to sleep with Niggers".

Indeed, newspapers reminded the public too-- such as Quincy papers called for the death of Frederick Douglass for simply speaking against slavery.   People today have almost no clue how dangerous it was -- and how even in Illinois, people were killed for "being a Negro Worshipper".

People do not know, because we don't teach it.  Lincoln faced a hostile crowd more than once, and used his humor and personal sincerity to overcome people in the crowd who saw him as a dangerous man who would have their daughters "sleep with Niggers".

Lincoln  had to, first, survive the onslaught of hate aimed at him by the most powerful speaker of the day (and maybe in all of US history)  Stephen A Douglas.  Douglas even ran across the stage in at least one city (Charleston) screaming about Lincoln "Niggerisms". 
Lincoln had to convince the public, there and at speeches that were not debates, that he was not about your daughter "sleeping with and marrying with Niggers".


Lincoln had to "carve out the right words"  if possible (and it was not possible in his Senate race, which he lost to Douglas)  to  not frighten the public more than they already were frightened by the hate and fear mongers, like Douglas and many newspapers, even in the North.

To be simply against the SPREAD of slavery  was equal to-- according to Douglas and many in the North who agreed with him --was to be for "perfect" right of blacks to sleep with your daughter.

It's hard to, today, grasp how horrible that sounded to voters.   

In fact, there was not a single candidate for major office who espoused "the perfect right"  of blacks to  sleep with white women, etc.  People were still being killed by crowds or vigilanties for such beliefs, like Lovejoy of Illinois.

And Stephen A Douglas threw around Lovejoy's name in the debates -- a clear "dog whistle"  that maybe Lincoln deserved Lovejoy's fate -- death.

Lincoln did carve out the equality as best he could --- and bravely so.   The United States Supreme Court ruled that the Declaration of Independence was NOT for blacks -- blacks were not persons, literally not persons, for lawful purposes.  They were property.

Lincoln claimed that was wrong -- blacks ARE persons. And as such they do have the rights, all the rights, in the Declaration of Inddpendnnce.

That was treason -- said Stephen A Douglas.   That was "revolution"   and Lincoln was "declaring war"  on the South by saying such things.

Yet Lincoln went right on saying them --  and lost the Senate rate as a result.

Lincoln was for all people, white and black, to have equality under the law -- the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".  And he said so, emphatically, powerfully. 

The public,  through newspapers, personal insults, and public ridicule,  were told Lincoln was not only a "Nigger lover" -- but that Lincoln was a traitor to his country, a traitor to his race,  and against GOD and the United States Supreme Court.

When Lincoln got up to speak -- every time he got up to speak after 1854 -- he took a calculated risk.   The bullet that ended up in his brain was put there by a man who heard Lincoln, in his last speech, talk about voting rights for blacks.

Within 24 hours, Lincoln lay dying with that bullet in his brain,  because Booth changed his plan from kidnap to kill.  He was infuriated by radical words -- voting rights -- for "educated" blacks.

Lincoln tried to parse words, to say things in a way that the public -- most of whom hated and feared black males (see below) could accept.  But when Lincoln said voting rights,  to Booth and to millions of other whites, that was too far.



In the hands of clever and powerful hate mongers, attacking Lincoln was easy.  As the stenographer for the Lincoln - Douglas debates said,  at times there was hardly a sentence uttered by Stephen A Douglas without the word "Nigger"  in it. 

Douglas yelled it in Lincoln's face. 

Quincy papers wrote of Douglas's  "Nigger rants"  and most papers, even those for Douglas, cleaned up the language,  as was common with the word "Nigger".

Not only the word "Nigger"  but Douglas "spit" the word out with venom and disgust.  Douglas even ran from side to side of the stage -- and the crowds approved and cheered him -- taunting Lincoln as "Negro Worshipper"  who will have your daughters "sleep with Niggers"  and your wife "be with Niggers".

Is that what you want, Douglas would ask?  The crowd yelled back "No, down with niggers".  Douglas had pumped them into a frenzy,  after which Lincoln had to speak.

So when Lincoln rose to speak, he had already been, in the press and in person, vilified as a "Negro Worshiper"  a "Nigger lover" and a traitor to his race and country. 

This basic truth is rarely even considered, or mentioned,  in books, movies and text books about Lincoln, Douglas, or their debates.   The newspapers at the time sanitized Douglas vulgar and deliberately hateful language and tone Douglas used. 

Douglas used that approach -- because it worked.  
And it worked -- Douglas won that election. 

Did Douglas create the "hate cult"  against blacks just for political gain?   Yes, he was at one time as anti-slavery as Lincoln.   But then he found out how effective he was at pumping hate and fear. 

No one probably told you this -- you'd have to know quite a bit about how Illinois folks, according to newspapers at the time,  "hated niggers"  and in much of the state, hated anyone who dared speak a word against slavery.

Did people in Illinois want slavery? Of course not -- but they were told, and really believed, that anyone who was against slavery therefore would have your daughters "sleep with Niggers". 

Anyone (not just Lincoln) who dared simply speak against the spread of slavery guaranteed themselves vicious assaults, including physical assaults in some places.   People were killed, even in Illinois, for speaking, just speaking, about abolition.


Even Stephen A Douglas himself -- who accused Lincoln of "Niggerism"  and that Lincoln "wants your daughters to sleep with Niggers"  was then himself accused of being a "Negro lover"  and abolitionist by some people in the South.

Not only that, but even Quincy newspapers called for the death of Frederick Douglas for just speaking --that's right -- called for his death for simply speaking against slavery.  See proof below.



Douglas was not the only one to use the "hate and fear pump" in Illinois. But Douglas did as much as anyone  else in the North to create the very real hate of that time, because he used his amazing speaking ability and connection with newspaper editors, many of whom pushed for his election and against Lincoln,  to pump up the hate and fear.    There were very few blacks in Illinois -- many people had never even seen a black person up close.

That did not stop them from hating blacks -- because they were told over and over their daughters, their wives, would "be with Niggers".

I can't help it that your teacher never told you.  This horrible and ugly side of what Lincoln had to face has never been candidly told in our US text books.

In the South, it was even more extreme -- Lincoln will "burn us slowly to death" and "destroy the white race"   by his "obsession for equality" .

What did they know about Lincoln? 


Southern leaders killed, and boasting of killing, to spread slavery against the will of the people, against state's rights, is not taught in any US high school text book. Not one.

Yet that  killing, boasting, and promising to spread slavery West and North (yes North) by violence, was exactly what Lincoln had to deal with.

Southern  leaders could hardly have bragged any more.

Southern leaders did not do idle boasts -- they did the killings and boasting at the same time. 

When you get their own words, their own speeches, their own books from that time, it's hard to know how they could have tortured more, went to war more, to spread slavery.   From 1840's on, there was increasing organized killing sprees, by Southerners, to spread slavery. Not just a few crazy guys -- paid men.   Men paid to do exactly this -- kill and terrorize to spread slavery.

And they bragged about it.  I can't help it if you were not told.  IF the bs meme is "South leaders cared about state's rights".   IF they cared about state's rights they would not have started two of the three wars to spread slavery!

Quit the opposite of state's rights.   Lincoln, not the Southern leaders, was for state's rights.   Even if a state, by the vote of the people there, were for slavery, Lincoln would not interfere.  

Contrast that to the South -- even if a state, by the vote of the people there (Kansas!) were against slavery,  Southern leaders sent killers and issued War Ultimatums.  They did not bluff. 


Me in China,  near Hong Kong, learning Tai Chi -- badly. 

It may sound absurd that I -- not a "trained" historian, and a terrible blogger-- could know something this basic, that is not in US history text books, is more of a surprise to me than anyone  else.  To see more about this.

I am a guy whose hobby of reading Southern books, Southern speeches, and Southern newspapers started about 12 years ago.  I had no expectations whatsoever

No clue -- no hint -- that I might find repeated information about Southern leaders killing to spread slavery -- and their own bragging about it. In fact, when I first ran across such information a few times, I just thought it was weird. An aberration by some nuts.

Oh hell no.  This was the clear, repeated, and official documents by Southern leaders at the time. In their own books, their own speeches, their own declarations.  Not someone else claiming it -- they themselves not just claiming this, but boasting about it. 


en, as now, it depends where you get your information.  I like original sources, at the time.  Especially those by the leaders, in their own publications, boasting of things. 

Stephen Douglas speeches are amazing -- he boasts of things I never heard.   And he did things I never heard.

Stephen A Douglas ran side to side of the stage-- screaming -- that Lincoln wanted your daughter to "sleep with Niggers".
Not just once, repeatedly.   In fact Douglas started his "nigger rants" as one newspaper called it, right off the train, getting the crowd (including his paid supporters) to cheer and yell in approval.

Then Lincoln had to stand up and defend equality for blacks -- immediately after Douglas told the crowd, got them pumped up -- that Lincoln wants your daughters to "sleep with Niggers"  and your wife to "be with Niggers"  and your children to go to school with "them".

Is that what you want, he yelled, then vote for Mr. Lincoln.

You can no more understand the Lincoln Douglas debates if you do not know this, than you can fly.  Sadly, most "history" teachers had no clue, and even when you tell them, it does not compute.  They have their "complex reasons" for the Civil War, and "states rights" for the South lectures printed up. 

And it's all wrong. 


Newspapers -- in Illinois - called Lincoln "full of Niggerism"  and a traitor to his country in time of war.  Lincoln was against the Mexican War, because it was (yes, it was) a war to spread slavery, and he was stupid enough, honest enough, to expose it as such. 

 Lincoln had a long history of fighting slavery -- not just by being against the Mexican War -- but he tried to outlaw slavery 40 times in the land US stole from Mexico.  Then Lincoln tried to outlaw slavery in District of Columbia.   

Before Lincoln ever got into Lincoln -Douglas debates, Lincoln was extremely well known in Illinois as being anti-slavery.   We are not told that, oddly.  

In fact, Lincoln was HATED -- HATED by many in central and Southern Illinois, for being "obsessed with equality for niggers".

People who knew him very well said he was obsessed with "nigger equality" .  Newspapers said he was for "nigger equality"  and "full of niggerisms".    He was more dangerous than self described abolitionist (abolitionist were seen in many places to be on the level of child molesters today, hated vehemently,  even killed in Illinois for being too outspoken for equality"  

Lincoln actually lost significant support after 1854 because he "came out swinging"  against slavery.

Again and again, Lincoln LOST -- remember this -- LOST elections because he was seen as "radical for Niggers".

This most basic fact is simply and stupidly not taught.   To make sense of the 1840's , of the 1850's, and to make sense of the US Civil War,  you are stupid as hell, even if you know all the "details" of every battle, every speech.  



Lincoln -- and hundreds of others -- spotted the violent fraud of Kansas Act from 1854 on.

The fact we don't teach that Kansas Act -- as Lincoln and many others said, and as Southern leaders even boasted about -- is a reason we are stupid about Lincoln generally, especially in our US text books.

Instead  of knowing Lincolns radical actions 1847 on, his amazing powerful speeches exposing this fraud of Kansas Act  and the violence used by South to spread slavery,   we teach Lincoln's 8 to 12 quotes. 




It depends which quotes you show.  

Lincoln said slave owner should be kicked to death.

Why not quote that 5000 times in the course of a child's education?

Lincoln also said he would hang those who tried to spread slavery.

Why not quote that?

Lincoln gave over 3000 speeches, over 1 million words.  

It would, of course, be wrong and misleading to ONLY quote Lincoln saying slave owners should be hung. 

It would be wrong, of course, to ONLY show Lincoln saying he would hang those who tried to spread slavery.

So why do just show the quotes that -- because we do not show context -- make Lincoln seem weak on slavery.  When you find out Lincoln was,  when everything is considered, THE MOST radical and effective against slavery.

Others did give more radical speeches --- but they dared not go where Lincoln went to give those speeches.

Others did give more radical speeches -- but they did not dare run for office and speak in public like that.

Unless you know this -- unless you know that during Lincoln's time, even people in Illinois were killed for being too radical for equality, you won't know your ass from a  banana about what led to the Civil War.



It's not the fault of your history teacher,  they learned the same watered down BS.

Still, it's fun for high school history teachers -- all they have to do is show a few quotes.  

History teachers will smugly tell you the South was for states rights to keep slavery.  

        1) Actually Southern leaders were killing and torturing -- and boasting of it -- to SPREAD slavery.  

        2) Most people in the North either hated or feared black males and thought anyone against slavery was dangerous because ending slavery would mean black males would sleep with white women.

 Because of the perverse "logic"  and "damned lie" of  Kansas Act, and Dred Scott, slavery was going to spread to all of the US, or be exterminated itself.   Southern leaders basically agree, when you learn their full documents and speeches.  It was all or nothing.

Lincoln dealt with the reality that we don't teach -- and even most history teachers seem not to suspect.  That Southern leaders had always killed to spread slavery -- slavery never spread otherwise. And, by the Dred Scott decision / Kansas Act,  this long  history of killing, torturing, and spreading slavery by force  was bound to continue.  

Since we don't teach Southern leaders always spread slavery by killing and torture (idiotically most history teachers think the South was for state's rights-- see more later) it would be absurd to teach that South leaders created "machinery"  to put these killings and tortures "on a legal basis" -- the legal basis being Dred Scott and Kansas act.

The House Divided speech, so often quoted by so many, was 100%, every word, every syllable, about this "cancer" of spreading slavery to all of the US.   Ironically though it's the second most recognized name for a Lincoln speech, history teachers practically dismiss Lincoln's correct observations.  Spreading slavery to all of the US?  What was Lincoln doing, sniffing glue?  They don't say that, but they have never taught clearly how right Lincoln was.




Q Why did Lincoln  focus so much on the spread of slavery? 

  Two reasons. 

1) He was right.

2) Most whites in North didn't give a shit about slavery itself, and almost no one wanted to end slavery by force, including Lincoln.



Mostly because of stupidity, and Southern states resistance to anything that makes them look like lunatics -- our national textbooks never make clear just how insane (yes, insane) and violent Southern politics was.   See The actions of Southern leaders -- the killing sprees, the boasting, the official boasting even, of spreading slavery against state's rights, and against the will of the public -- is simply not taught today.  Big mistake.  

 Lincoln emphesized this truth -- that the machinery of slavery was on what we might call "autopilot"  to spread slavery was smart about it -- no use getting a bullet to the brain sooner than he did.  He spoke carefully, politely, but powerfully against slavery.

Others in Illinois were killed for speaking too bluntly against slavery, and you will soon learn why they were killed, and why Lincoln had to be careful, but eventually got a bullet to the brain anyway, careful as he was. 


Douglas also told the crowd -- repeatedly - that he saw Lincoln in a carriage with a white woman and a black man, just that day.   No, Lincoln had not done that... but it was a way to get Lincoln to back down, and the crowd more hateful than they were to Lincoln (as many were).

You can read the Lincoln Douglas yourself, if you can get an unedited, not-cleaned-up version.  Even cleaned up, when you know the details, it's clear Stephen A Douglas is trying to get Lincoln attacked -- don't believe me?

Douglas knew plenty of the citizens of Illinois hated Frederick A Douglass.  Newspapers in Quincy, where Lincoln had to speak,  called for the DEATH of Frederick Douglass.

So when Stephen A Douglas was yelling that Lincoln wants your daughters to sleep with "Niggers"  and Lincoln is with Frederick Douglass and a white women, he was doing that for a reason..... and it worked. He won that race.  Easily.

If you were alive then, in all of the South, and in much of the North - why on earth would you think such things?  After all, 150 years later, smug history teachers will tell you with utter self confidence "Lincoln really didn't care about slavery until later". 

Or,   you may hear, Lincoln just used slavery to appeal for support for more troops.  Actually Lincoln lost repeatedly because he was portrayed as "Nigger Worshipper"  - and he had to be very careful, before ran for President, and after, how he said things.


In fact, Lincoln got a bullet to the brain after one of his "slips"  where he uttered a sentence about voting rights for blacks--  he qualified it, "educated"  blacks, he said in the speech, but John Wilkes Boothe heard that speech, and changed his plan from kidnap to kill.

Boothe thought that because most people thought that --and white males might, might, fight for the Union, but virtually no one would fight for "Niggers to sleep with white women".


Yes, Lincoln occasionally parsed words- - wisely so. According to Bloomington newspaper at the time, most of the white males in Southern Illinois thought Lincoln would have their daughters "sleep with Niggers".

Gee - I wonder how they got that opinion.

Worse, almost all Southern white males thought that, too.  The first Confederate soldiers, when asked why they were fighting, said so.  They said "You Yankees will have our daughter's marry with Niggers".

I wonder how they got that idea, too? 

Did anyone ever tell you how "radical" Lincoln was in word and action, for "Nigger equality"?

Lincoln will "wage war all over  for Nigger equality" - is that what you want?   North and South, Stephen A Douglas told them, Lincoln will wage the war to end slavery. 

You should not be surprised, but you will be surprised, to learn Lincoln was hated by many in Illinois for his "obsession" for "Nigger equality".

In fact, according to newspapers in Illinois at the time, 80% of the white males (the only voters) the lower 2/3 of the state, saw Lincoln as a danger to whites -- because Lincoln, they believed "would have your daughters sleep with Niggers".

It helps to the full set of facts.

Lincoln was liked personally by all who knew him -- but so extreme, so repeated, and so partly true were the allegations that Lincoln was "obsessed" with equality, and more importantly, that equality for Negroes meant white women would be "sleeping with Niggers" . 

It was not just Stephen A Douglas that screamed Lincoln would have your daughters sleep with "Niggers"  it was other newspapers in Illinois.    It is a vile and ugly topic, virtually untouched and untaught in our education system, even at college level. 

Yet "Lincoln will have your daughters" sleep with "Niggers was the overwhelming reason Lincoln lost the Senate race -- according to newspaper editors in Bloomington at any rate, at the time. 

Nor was this "knife" as Lincoln called it, aimed only at Lincoln.  We do not teach the ugly truth -- North and South, anyone who dared not be for the spread of slavery,  remember, just being against the spread of slavery, was to invite attack that you were a "Negro Worshipper"  even in the SOUTH. 

White survival was at stake. The existance of the white race was in peril --if the South could not spread slavery.

The most powerful speaker of the 1800's was Stephen A Douglas, according to numerous historians since, and according to newspapers at the time. 

Douglas shouted to the crowd, and to the public, that Lincoln was so "obsessed" with equality, that he would have your daughter "sleep with and marry with Niggers".   

And it worked. Douglas easily won every election against Lincoln one -on-one, because -- remember this -- because Douglas successfully convinced voters (white males) that Lincoln was going to have "your wife walk down the street with Negroes, and your daughter sleep with them". 

Lincoln spent about a decade of his life trying to find a way to answer such deadly (yes, deadly) accusations; people in Illinois were still being attacked, some killed, for speaking too bluntly for equality.  In fact, no one -- no one --spoke more "radically"  than Lincoln, when you know his private words, all his speeches, and his actions. 


It depends on what information you have to go by. 

If you have mostly  his quotes -- and only about ten of those -- you can make him sound either like the most radical abolitionist in the US, more radical than John Brown.  Lincoln said slave owners deserve to be kicked to death.

Even John Brown never went that far.

It depends - do you  know the full story? 


Lincoln was "as racist as anyone"  and wanted to deport the slaves.  He didn't believe blacks and whites were equal, nor should they vote, nor should slavery end.

You can find quotes that seem to "prove that."

But when you get all Lincoln's kick ass quotes -- like slave owners should be kicked to death, like he had to kill slavery carefully, like slavery will take over all of the US, or be destroyed by the Union -- you get an entirely different picture.

Then when you learn what Lincoln did -- kicking slavery in the ass 1847 on, and how he was hated for his actions 1847 on -- you realize Lincoln's enemies were right.  

He was "obsessed" with equality.

Stephen Douglas Satchel.

Did you know what Stephen Douglas carried with him in every Lincoln Douglas debates?  A leather satchel. 

Do you know what was in that satchel?  A list of Lincoln quotes.

Quotes about what?  About any slave woman is equal to any white man.  About slavery must end or the Union will end. About Lincoln saying any black person is equal to him, equal to Judge Douglas, and to any white men...... the same quotes you never heard about.

Douglas heard about those quotes, he was on stage when Lincoln said many of them. 

Short quotes, long quotes, all true. Douglas never showed a false quote.     And with those quotes he painted Lincoln as "obsessed with equality for the Niggers"/

Bloomington papers said Douglas won that elections (Senate race)  because 80%  of the public thought Lincoln was obsessed with equality for "Niggers".

And Lincoln got a bullet in the brain for another quote -- in the last speech of his life, he spoke for equality for "educated blacks". 

So Lincoln speaking  of the possibility, in the future, of black voters literally got him killed.  Yet by leaving these kind of basic facts out, people can and do trash Lincoln any way they please. 


Douglas, according to newspapers at the time, went into "Nigger rants"  for an hour at  a time.  This from a Quincy paper.

Charleston papers reported Douglas running back and forth on the stage - screaming-- that Lincoln wanted your daughters to "sleep with Niggers".  I can't help it no one told you.

Do you want your wife walking down the street with Negroes? Do you want your daughter to sleep with and marry with them,  yelled Douglas in Knox Illinois.   And the crowd yelled back "Down with Niggers"?

According to Bloomington papers -- 80% of the white males believed Lincoln would have their daughters sleep with Negroes.

This -- Negroes sleeping with  your daughters -- was the actual issue in the speeches, and in the public mind.  Douglas went after this issue right off the bat -- before he even got to the stage, Douglas was getting the crowd pump up about "Mr Lincoln and the Negroes".

Douglas even told the crowd that he saw, that very day, Lincoln in a carriage with a black man and white woman. False, of course, but exactly the kind of "knife" Douglas used to slice and dice Lincoln, before Lincoln could even speak.

Then -- when Lincoln did get to speak -- he had to be very, very careful.  The amazing thing is  - - Lincoln kicked ass about equality.  He kicked ass --carefully --but he kicked ass.

 The video is a very "cleaned up" version of the debates, because Douglas actually ran from side to side of the stage, screaming about "Niggers" or "Negroes" sleeping with your daughters.

Remember too -- Lincoln lost, and lost badly -- to Douglas in this race.  And Douglas was going to win POTUS easily too, until three men ran against Lincoln, all those three were fine with the spread of slavery.  If any of those three ran against Lincoln themselves -- because Lincoln was so "radical"  -- they would have won, and slavery would have spread, as they all promised to let it spread. 



Douglas would read to the public the evidence of "Lincoln's obsession"    What was Lincoln's obsession, according to Stephen A Douglas?   Simple.

Equality for the Niggers. 

Douglas picked quotes like this -- where Lincoln said slave owners should be kicked to death.

Radical enough for you?  Kicked to death?  Then when he was able, Lincoln did that. He kicked slavery to death.

SO you need more than a few quotes. You need to understand WHY Douglas won that election so easily. 


Lincoln was shown differently, then.

Lincoln gave over 2000 speeches.  Over 2 million words. In fact, from the date of passage of the violent Kansas Act, Lincoln did little else, day in, day out, every day, all day, speaking about why Kansas Act and slavery were toxic --deadly -- to the United States.

Frederick Douglass (who was world famous before Lincoln even ran for Senate) regularly trashed Lincoln as being "slow" for equality.  Yet Douglass also said that Lincoln was "Radical, swift, zealous and determined"  to end slavery.


Like the bible -- you can quote Lincoln any way you like.  You can make it seem like he was pro slavery.  You can make it seem like he was eager for war to rip slavery out by the roots.  You can make it seem like he wanted to deport 4 million blacks.  

And that is exactly what happens in the "Quote game".   Quoting Lincoln is of course proper--just get all the words, and actions.  You can't be fooled by hustlers and liars, if you know the full story. 

Yet if you show Lincoln's full quotes, and more,  show his actions, Lincoln was radical, "obsessed"  for equality.  Who else did little else but go place to place for years exposing the cancer of slavery, kicking slavery (as he did) in the ass repeatedly by his actions and words. 

Who else, according to Frederick Douglass himself, was "radical, swift, zealous and determined"  to end slavery?

Those people who knew Lincoln best (Stephen A Douglas sure knew Lincoln) screamed to the public over and over how radical "for Niggers"  Lincoln was. 




Get all Lincoln's words -- like slave owners should be kicked to death.  Harp on those stunning quotes by Lincoln about kicking slave owners to death, about how slavery will destroy the United States or be destroyed, about how any black person is equal to any white person -- on and on -- and you can make Lincoln seem foaming at the mouth eager for war to destroy slavery. 

There was only one thing Lincoln hated more than slavery -- and he spoke about hating slavery over and over.   

What did Lincoln hate more than slavery?  Any illegal and violent acts to end slavery -- because that would not work.

There was no one -- no one
who wanted or advocated war against the South to end slavery in the South.  No one. 

There were Northern leaders who wanted to let the South go -- keep their damn slavery down there.  But it was insane to want a war to end slavery.   There was no public will, or support, for a war to end  slavery in the South. 

Lincoln was lucky to get elected at all -- and only won because three candidates ran against him, all of whom were fine with the spread of slavery.    If any one of those candidates ran against Lincoln, instead of all three, they would have won easily.

Lincoln knew that public sentiment was against any violence to stop slavery where it was.  "I have no warrant"  Lincoln said, to end slavery where it was.  There was no public support for such a war, and mostly, such a war would not work.  Only by legal means -- and with public sentiment -- Lincoln said at length and repeatedly, can we end slavery.

But we will end slavery -- slavery will end, or the United States will end, he said. One or the other has to end. 



Lincoln knew -- and wrote -- about how insanely violent slave power folks were. How men were tortured and burned alive --  yes they were -- for resisting slavery.  How slavery always --always, spread by violence.

He rarely spoke like that in front of a crowd -- and wisely so.  The public already knew how violent slave power was.  People were still being killed, during Lincoln's campaigns even, for being too radical for "Niggers".  

In Quincy, for example, newspapers called for the death of Frederick Douglass (or as  Stephen A Douglas called him at times "Nigger Douglass) for speaking against slavery.  

Did you know that Illinois papers called for the death of black leaders for just speaking against slavery? 

Did you know Lincoln's friend, Lovejoy, brother was killed in another Illinois city, that too the site of a Lincoln Douglas debate!  Lovejoy was killed, possibly burned to death in his print shop, after he published anti-slavery newspaper. 

And Lincoln went to Kansas, after Southern leaders made it a crime to speak or publish anti- slavery papers there.  

Even US Senators -- Stephen A.Douglas other political enemy - could be beaten, even on the Senate floor, for speaking too bluntly against slavery. 

We simply don't know or teach how radical it was to run for office, or even speak, too blunty for equality during Lincoln's life. 



 Lincoln saying slavery was a cancer, and he had to kill it carefully. He explained slavery as a deadly thing, and why it could not just be chopped out.  That would not work.  First, public sentiment had to be changed, and the public aware of this "spreading cancer".  

Was Lincoln lying?  Why are these quotes almost unknown?

Like Lincoln saying any slave woman is equal to him, and to any white man. Why not put together 20 such amazing quotes at the time?  And ignore the rest -- if you can ignore what you want, and only use what  you want?


Like Lincoln saying he won't let the South destroy the Union by pushing slavery by Kanas Act and Dred Scott decision. 

Douglas actually had a satchel -- in it Lincoln's quotes about slavery. Not just a few words, but Lincoln's long and full quotes about equality, about slavery as a cancer, about slavery will destroy the Union or slavery will be destroyed. 

And Douglas was able to use those quotes to "prove" to 80% of the white males (according to Bloomington newspapers)  that Lincoln wanted your daughters to sleep with "Niggers".

It's not my fault you did not know this -- and this is just the tip of the iceberg of what we are not taught (because it's too ugly?) in US schools.

But Stephen A Douglas made damn sure the public knew this --and he had a lot of help, from newspapers, and other speakers, at the time.  You may not know it, your history teacher may be stupid about it.

But the people at the time were very well aware of it.

In private, Lincoln was even more amazing, more clear.  The Kansas Act, and Dred Scott, put the US on inevitable course -- like full blown cancer -- to kill not just the United States (the Union)  but to destroy the "last best hope" of mankind for a government of the people, by the people. 

We read those public speeches by Lincoln  -- and assume, oh, hell. Lincoln was exaggerating.  No, he was not.

You are about to learn  how right Lincoln was, and why he got that bullet in the head. 


You can, if you like, show Lincoln, from a slice of those words, as eager for war, eager to kill slavery.  

For example, Lincoln said slave owners deserve to be kicked to death.

Kicked.  To. Death.

Bet you did not know that.

Stephen Douglas played the Lincoln quote game well, and far more honestly than people play it today.



In all US history -- go on, look -- no one said anything more radical than Lincoln's outburst that slave owners deserve nothing but "Kicking contempt and death".




Lincoln said a LOT of things, and more importantly DID a lot of things. When you know all his words, and more importantly, know what he did, you won't be fooled by liars and bullshitters.   

The best place to learn about Lincoln -- ironically enough -- is from his enemies at the time, North and South.


Over and over Lincoln spoke of public sentiment -- public opinion. With public support, he could and would destroy slavery.  Yet the majority of whites in the North were not willing to do anything to stop slavery from spreading.  

Lincoln was defeated for office time and time again -- precisely BECAUSE he was seen as "Negro Worshipper" by so many.  Again and again, hundreds of times, Lincoln spoke very carefully to the public.   He was not saying their daughters should sleep with "Niggers"   Rather, he was saying slavery is a cancer that is spreading, and because of Kansas Act and Dred Scott, slavery would now spread everywhere or be itself destroyed.

When Lincoln did get the public support and legal authority, years later, Lincoln kicked slavery to death.



Lincoln's stories were amazing, and he told a story to explain how he had to kill slavery carefully.  It already existed.  It was already "in bed"  with "the children".  

Slavery was lawful,  he pointed out a thousand times.  Horribly, even the SCOTUS had ordered (yes ordered)  slavery to be protected, even where slavery was rejected by vote, as in Kansas, even there, the federal government ordered slavery protected.

Because it was lawful, because SCOTUS ordered it protected, because it would take public support and new laws, new constitutional amendments to end slavery, Lincoln had no intention, and no ability, to end it by any means -- other than lawful.

So he did end it, when he could, lawfully.  But that took the entire Congress- -and ratification by the states, to do.  

Yet when Lincoln ran for POTUS, most people, even in the North, did not give a shit about slaves, or did they want free slaves running around free in the North.  They sure did not want their daughters "sleeping with and marrying Niggers"  as Douglas told them over and over.




Lincoln said he had to kill slavery carefully.   If he and others could have killed slavery before it spread, he would kill it a different way.  But because slavery was spread -- like a cancer he said -- he and others had to kill it a different way.

Why not go by those words -- his political enemies were sure quick to expose Lincoln's "radical obsession" for "Nigger equality".

Why not even mention those  -- and not mention Lincoln's even more "radical" efforts to kick slavery in the ass, from 1847 on.

Those who trashed Lincoln during his life were also quick to show Lincoln's "Niggerism" actions,  and show the public his obsession for equality by way of his actions too.

Why don't we show those?



Few people today realize that to be called an "abolitionist" in 1840-1860 was a lot like being called "child molester" today.  We consider abolitionist as heroes today.  In Illinois it could still be a dangerous thing to be "too radical".   Which is why Stephen A Douglas made sure the public thought Lincoln was as radical as possible.

Then Lincoln had to get up and argue that blacks  are equal under the law- - which he did, powerfully.  But you need to get the full speeches, not edited bullshit. 


Depends which words you use.  Which you know about.



Not just Lincoln.

Lincoln did get the most powerful speaker of the day - Douglas -- to scream repeatedly about Lincoln being "obsessed with equality".   

Why -- why was "equality" to scary?  

You should have a clue by now -- the "daughter sleeping with Niggers"  thing.   That was it.

Politicians North and South were sometimes even more fear and hate mongering that Douglas about "Niggers" sleeping with your daughter.


Lincoln would - - because our daughters (children) would live in equality with blacks "will be burned to death slowly".

Your wife will walk down the streets with "Niggers" said Douglas repeatedly.  Blacks will be on juries -- do you want that?  They will go to schools with your children!   

They will VOTE -- do you want that!!!

That was the hate and fear pumped into the minds of everyone who tried to stop the spread of slavery.  Equality - even just stopping the spread of slavery -- would doom the white race.


Lincoln wisely parsed words -- or as some called Lincoln's style "sharp talk".   He seemed to agree with a prejudice of the day, then reversed course and  all but obliterates that very prejudice.

Listen to the whole video -- each topic is crucial.

Notice you can -- if you like -- quote Lincoln from these words as someone who is not for equality. 

But given the whole speech, in context, and know that people were still being killed in Illinois, (yes, they were ) for speaking too bluntly for equality, you might "get it" that was profoundly, and recklessly "radical".



Lincoln "unmasked" as pro slavery,  homosexual, and only used slavery "as an excuse" to get and keep power.

All these absurdities -- guys like Dilorenzo has quotes for....but of course, he does not put in the full quotes and full sets of facts.

If you just take part of the story, you can make Lincoln seem anyway you like. 


Strange indeed....because at the time, Lincoln was lucky he didn't get a bullet to the brain sooner, he was so "radical for Niggers"  and such a "Nigger worshipper".





From 1854 on, Lincoln devoted nearly every day of his life, most  hours of every day, to either ending slavery, or working to get the public to see the "cancer" of slavery that would either spread slavery to all of the US -- or die trying.

Lincoln's main message was not just the cruelty of slavery, in inhumanity of slavery -- it was that slavery was spreading -- spreading like a cancer, that would force slavery into all of the US.   Either the US would be all slave, or all free.



Lincoln knew this very well -- virtually everyone in United States, North and South, knew this.

But you probably do not, nor does your teacher.  If you are in high school and college, ask your teacher why slavery would not end in the South.  

See if they even mention this most basic reason..

Slavery would never end in the South because it was against the law to even preach against it, or speak publicly against slavery.  In fact, when Southern leaders sent over 1000 killers to Kansas in 1856, the first thing the killers did is to make it a crime to speak publically or publish anything against slavery.

 Stephen A Douglas wanted a law in the NORTH  to make it slander to speak, even in the North,  against slavery owners in the South.  Why?  Because the South was led by men who did not allow anyone to question slavery in the South, and they hated that people in the North could write newspapers against slavery, and have candidates against slavery.

Of course there were laws against mailing anything to the South that was against slavery.  Books against slavery were outlawed. In fact, from 1810 on, many ships were searched -- searched for mail or newspapers against slavery.

And people, even preachers, could be whipped in public then sent to prison for even owning the wrong book.  

Don't believe me?   Read this....Arrested tortured for owning the wrong book


Those that accused Lincoln of being radical to end slavery -- guess what?   They were right. But Lincoln had to be very careful how he did it, and what he told the public while doing so. 



Leave out Lincoln's full speeches, his actions, and you can make him sound anyway you like. You can make him sound, even, pro slavery, or anti-equality. 

You can make him sound eager for war -- or terrified of it.  

You can make him sound profoundly religious, or an agnostic. 

You can make him sound indifferent to the horrors of slavery-- or eager to kick slave owners to death.

The choice is yours -- or rather, the choice is the text book publisher, the school boards buying the books, or the "historians" telling about Lincoln. 



Like the bible can be used, by clever people and stupid, by believers and non-believers alike, to prove anything they wanted to prove. 

With Lincoln,  you can seem to "prove" it indisputably by any one of 12 to 15 quotes.

Don't show the full speech, of course, or don't show context, or don't show what Lincoln said ten seconds later.  Don't show his full actions, don't dare mention what was going on, and it's an easy thing to do.  In fact, it's actually difficult not to distort Lincoln.  

 It's easy to do, so even many "historians" do it. 

They should know better, yet they do not. 



Lincoln was very popular with people who knew him personally -- his sense of humor, his kindness, his deep sense of compassion, was well known to people who had the privilege of knowing him personally.

In fact, Lincoln had "the gift if mimicry".  He would speak like others, immitate them perfectly and with great humor.  We would call him a  natural comedian, and crowds formed around him for the humor and great stories he told.

Lincoln will "burn us slowly to death"  just by being against
the SPREAD of slavery 

Douglas knew Lincoln well -- at one time, Douglas was, like Lincoln, anti slavery and very much anti spread of slavery. 

Also as Congressman, Lincoln tried to get slavery outlawed in the land just stolen from Mexico (see below).  That would be the Wilmot Proviso....

In fact, Lincoln tried 40 times -- 40 times -- to get slavery outlawed in the land just stolen (yes we stolen land from Mexico). 


Then Lincoln tried to get slavery outlawed in District of Columbia. He did  not merely introduce the bill,  he fought very hard for it. 



Lincoln was well aware most people in the NORTH did  not care about slavery.  Again and again Lincoln lost elections because he was considered "radical, obsessed, a Nigger Worshipper".

There was no public sentiment, North or South, or in any part of the US, to end slavery suddenly -- or by force.  In fact, the only force used was the force to SPREAD slavery,  not to stop slavery.

John Brown tried on his own to get slaves to free themselves by force -- and was quickly hung for it.  Lincoln, and others, knew and said Brown had done a stupid thing, he only made it harder for slavery to end, by trying to use force.   Slavery had to end by consent, by agreement, or it would remain.

That is why Lincoln did end slavery, with a Constitutional Amendment.  He did issue the Emancipation proclamation, but that had a time limit, and restrictions.   That proclamation ended when the war ended, it was issued only as a war measure, and stopped automatically when the war ended.

Which is why Lincoln was extremely eager to get the 13th Amendment passed immediately.  He had to legal power to keep slaves free,  after the war ended.



Few people criticized Lincoln more, at times, that Frederick Douglass, who once said Lincoln was no more against slavery than the slave owners. 

But Douglass found out more about Lincoln -- he did not know all the facts, early on.  But he learned more, and mostly, Douglass knew that most whites even in Illinois hated, or at least disliked, Lincoln.  Lincoln had to be careful what he said, so he would not be killed sooner. 

As time went on, Douglas realized the profound wisdom of Lincoln
Douglas explained it -- as usual -- very well. 



Lincoln  will "burn us to death slowly"  by stopping the spread of slavery.




It was illegal for a black man to even come to Illinois when Lincoln was running for office.  The punishment was 39 lashes of a whip if the black was caught moving to the state, and 39 lashes of the whip for every week he stayed.

          Why the hatred for blacks?   Because politicians  - the politicians that won most elections - were very good at pumping up the hate and fear of black men taking white women.   You are not taught this, at all, in US schools.  Over and over, and over, Stephen A Douglas, and many others, used "Niggers will take the white women"  speech, to one degree of vulgarity or another. 

When Lincoln got up to speak, Lincoln knew that most of the audience (only white males voted) were not necessarily pro-slavery, but they feared the idea that black males would be free to walk down the street,  free to talk to white women. 

In fact, those who spoke out  too candidly for equality of the races were still being killed -- in Illinois -- during Lincoln's political career.  Owen Lovejoy,  a brother to Lincoln's friend, was burned to death in his abolitionist printing business in Alton -- a place Lincoln had to go to debate.

Lincoln also had to debate in Quincy -- where the newspapers called for the death of Frederick Douglas for even speaking -- just speaking -- against slavery.  Let me repeat that.  A Quincy paper urged death to Frederick Douglass for SPEAKING publically against slavery.

If you don't understand that -- not only do you not understand Lincoln, you don't understand US history.  Politicians like Stephen Douglas  became rich, powerful, and famous for helping slave owners -- and for demonizing Lincoln for being "obsessed with equality"

You m
Most history teachers have no clue -- so US text book makes this clear (that we know about, anyway).   So  how would the public today know?

"Lincoln is nothing but Niggerisms.... he is a traitor to his race and the nation.... a black Republican who will have your daughters sleep with Niggers, have your schools filled with Niggers....  have Niggers on your juries.... "

The kind of thing Lincoln heard  or read in newspapers every day of his life, 1847 on.   Lincoln was keenly aware of the violent nature of not only slave owners -- but of those who believed hate and fear mongers.  It was not the politician like Stephen A Douglas, or Jefferson Davis, or a thousand others who actually hung blacks, burned them to death,  and committed endless atrocities. 

It was the people who listened, and believed, the hate and fear mongers. 


Indeed Lincoln did -- hundreds of times - "harp" on the subject of equality.   

Lincoln most assuredly DID harp on equality for blacks, hundreds of times --he argued for equality under the law, for the rights of blacks as spoken of in the Declaration of Independence.   The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Powerful speeches -- speeches that changed a nation.   

Douglas, of course,  then tried to make that seem like your wife and daughter will "be" with black males.   You should have been taught that, an at age appropriate time.  It is an ugly issue, but it is what actually happened, and what actually led to the US Civil War.

Lincoln had to be very careful --or he would have gotten a bullet to the brain much sooner.   People today just do no realize, even in the NORTH,  whites could be and were killed.   In Illinois, particularly downstate Illinois, Lincoln was considered by many to be a traitor, from what they heard in newspapers, and from politicians.

No one -- absolutely no one -- in Illinois, or most states, ever argued for "perfect social equality".   Taking "our women"  -- sleeping with Niggers as Douglas put it repeatedly (and you are not told of).  

  It takes most people an hour or more  to read some of Lincoln's speeches.  Yet in those speeches,  repeatedly speaks of so many "details" of history, you practically need a degree in history to know everything he spoke of.   

So it's much easier to grab a half dozen quotes, or however many you need, and then make Lincoln seem anyway you like.

Lincoln's long history of fighting slavery was well known in the 1850s.  In fact, Lincoln was hated, by those who supported slavery, for his actions from 1846 on.

Lincoln's long history of fighting slavery was well known in the 1850s.  Why don't we know it, or at least know of it, now?

In fact, Lincoln was hated, by those who supported slavery, for his actions and his words, from 1846 on.

No one told you, did they?   You would need his full speeches, though, his full actions, to grasp that.  If you know the nine excerpts, and only that, it would be impossible, not just difficult, for you to know what Lincoln said fully.

For example, Lincoln said slave owners should be kicked to death.  He shouted that he would not let the South destroy the Union by spread of slavery.  He wrote and said many other things, other than the nice quotes most people seem to rely on.

You will NOT hear this, at least not candidly, by most folks who trash or belittle Lincoln now -- but Lincoln was in fact radical in his words and actions long before he ran for Senate.

He used humor -- or likely would have been shot a lot sooner.

Even when called "Negro Worshiper" to his face.  Even when Douglas told the crowd Lincoln wanted their daughters to sleep with "Niggers"  Lincoln held his cool.

When Lincoln responded, he often had the crow laughing, instead of trying to attack him.

Lincoln  never insulted anyone (because it could get you shot).  He never called slave owners vile or murderous.  Lincoln bent over backwards to offer the "olive branch" of kindness and appreciation of their position.  

Again and again Lincoln spoke about paying slave owners for freeing their slaves, and he did just that during the war in Kentucky.  He offered compensation later, in 1847, trying to end slavery gradually in District of Columbia.

But slave owners did not want compensation. To be blunt, they wanted the flesh of slave women (yes, they did) and to be able to do what they wanted to slave women.  As we found out from numerous sources, slave rape was common in the South.  You could keep  your slave woman pregnant, have her work, sell her, sell her children, or any number of vile things, and get more power and money yet.

Selling your slaves one time for what Lincoln would have paid was not going to get you women in your barn, to do whatever you desired, and then work in your fields, and create other slaves by birth, and make you richer.
Gee -- does Lincoln sound like someone who was not against slavery?   Remember, this made Lincoln extremely unpopular, especially in Southern Illinois, and for the rest of his life gave his Illinois opponents something to use to make the public think Lincoln wanted "your daughters to sleep with Niggers".

So from then on, in every speech the rest of his life, essentially Lincoln had to explain -- no, I did not ever say your daughters should sleep with Negroes.  But- - he would then add, about slave women "in her natural right she IS my equal and the equal of any man."

He even, at one point, said slave owners should be kicked to death.

To. Death.

Still sound like a man not against slavery?

Do you yet see why you need the entire story?

Do you see why the lying (or stupid) bastards trying to trash Lincoln dare not tell you the whole story?

And there is more to come. 

Lincoln will "exterminate the white race"  by stopping the spread of slavery.  Lincoln (the North) wants us to "sting ourselves to death".  Our white race will  be "exterminated"  by men like Lincoln.

The crowds cheered.  The violence was already started, 1856 on.

Lincoln will burn us to death.

Lincoln will exterminate the white race.


When newspapers and political enemies accused Lincoln of "Niggerism"  and "obsession for equality for Niggers"  they had the "proof".

They had Lincoln quotes and actions. His quotes about the lowest slave is equal to any white man.  His quotes about slavery must die or the Union will die.  His quotes about we can not exist half slave and half free.

And they had his actions -- in the Mexican War, in Congress in 1847, and his attempts to end or prevent slavery in the land stolen (yes stolen) from Mexico.  They told of his actions to end slavery in District of Columbia.    

These quotes and actions proved Lincoln was "a Negro Worshipper"  and he "wants your daughters to sleep with Niggers" 

So when Lincoln spoke -- which was several times a day to crowds for years -- he had to answer.  Do you want our daughters to sleep with "Niggers" ?   Will you destroy the white race? 

Did you know Douglas  yelled into Lincoln's face, ran side to side of the debate stage screaming to the crowd that "Lincoln wants your daughters to sleep with Niggers"?
So when LIncoln got up to speak -- he had to explain to the white males in the audience.  They were there to learn -- did you want our daughters to sleep with "Niggers"?   Are you going to have our wives "be with Niggers".?

Go read the full Lincoln Douglas debates.  Not just a few sentences.  And read it knowing, this time, what the hell was going on, what Lincoln was accused of.

Not only would your daughters "sleep with Niggers" .   That was just the start of Douglas rants. A white girl marrying a black man was of course illegal.  Lincoln could have been attacked at any time by whites in the audience  -- as others were attacked, beaten, or killed.  See below on Douglas role in getting a US Senator beaten almost to death.

Douglas literally runs from one side of the stage, to the other, screaming.


Your wife will "BE"  with Niggers. Douglas actually ran back and forth on the stage screaming this. 

You will have "Niggers" on juries. "Niggers" at your schools.  "Niggers will vote."

Do you want that, Douglas screamed?

Do you know what the crowd yelled back?    NO!    "Down with Niggers"

Then Lincoln had to explain himself.....

Douglas won that Senate race -- easily. 

Douglas did the smart thing politically, and won because of it. Lincoln tried to explain, over and over, he was against slavery, very much against it. and very much against the spread of slavery that was going to cover the entire US (yes, really)   We must stop slavery as we must stop a cancer.   Slavery was now set to spread to the entire US  (As Southern leaders boasted of -- yes they did) or slavery will die.  



Yes, Lincoln had to sometimes parse words -- so he did.  He would have gotten that bullett to the brain sooner if he had not parsed words.  He would have lost every election, instead of just most elections, and he would not have won the Civil War unless he spoke very carefully.

So he spoke carefully -- and all the while kicking slavery in the ass. 


Lincoln's enemies accused him of wanting to end slavery even in the South.  He had no power to end slavery in the South, and no "warrant"  as he called it, no public support to end slavery in the South. 

 Most people in the North were afraid black men would take the white women if they were freed, a fact not taught today, but very real then.

Other than a few "extremist" like John Brown, no whites dared fight the South to end slavery.  John Brown was hung very quickly after he was caught using violence to end slavery.  



Over and over, and over, Lincoln exposed the goal of slave power -- the violent, foul, and deliberate efforts to spread slavery always by violence and fraud.  While Lincoln spoke in polite guarded tone of voice in public, in private and in person Lincoln was much more candid about the endless violence used to spread slavery, and the goal of slave power.


The problem was the hate and fear mongers used the most extreme justifications for the spread of slavery, and for slavery itself.

Slavery was "of GOD"  and God ordained not only slavery, but the torture and punishment of the black race for biblical reasons. 

Once you go to that goofy extreme, as Jeff Davis and others found out, you can't  possibly back off.   As Francis Blair wrote and spoke of repeatedly, those who pushed slavery in the speeches and documents, and could get crowds cheering for spreading slavery for GOD, did not talk like that off stage.

But once they got the crowds fired up -- and therefore attained the political power they wanted -- men like Davis, Atchison, Stephens, Toombs and others could not, even if they wanted to, stop the killings and tortures they had recently advocated or justified.

The Civil War was the result of these men and their amazing ISIS like rhetoric about slavery and the death of the white race if they did not spread slavery.


There were huge riots in the North against against sending men to fight to end slavery in the South.  As difficult as the war was in the South, Lincoln's biggest problem was keeping the Union together and getting enough support in the North to win the war, on any basis. 

So yes, at times, Lincoln did speak about Union  -- and wisely do.   He also made it clear repeatedly,  that slavery would end, or the Union would end. 


If  Lincoln was stupid about it -- he could lose the war in the first three months. 

He could have said "damn right, I will  kick slavery to death as soon as I can".   Lincoln knew that was not possible, and not legal, and not a way to end slavery.


Lincoln called it "public sentiment".  With public sentiment, you can do anything.  Without it, you can do nothing.

There was no public sentiment for a war to end slavery.  

Very few, if any,  men in the North would actually fight to end slavery in the South.  The idea was absurd. 


Lovejoys death in Alton.
Killed for being "too radical" for "Niggers" 

One of the Lincoln Douglas debates was in ALTON.  

Douglas knew exactly who had died there.  Douglas actually named "Lovejoy" several times in the Lincoln Douglas debates.  He was telling folks -- and he knew this -- how radical and dangerous Lincoln was.  Lincoln's "friend" Lovejoy -- Douglas taunted him.

Douglas did not just imply such things -- he shouted it bluntly too --Lincoln would have your daughters sleep with black men. 

The crowds knew why.

Lincoln knew why.

Douglas knew why.

Why smart people should never settle for slogans, sound bites, or a few facts regarding Lincoln.   

Stupid people do that quite a bit.  Sadly, that slogan based laziness and duplicity has increasingly passed into academia and public discourse as "truth".

Big mistake, especially regarding US Civil War. 
The same fallacy applies to "scholarship"  of Lincoln, since the  stupidity about one leads necessarily to stupidity about the other. And in both cases, it's the slogans, the take away sound bites, pushed by the author themselves in many cases, that's the problem.